Beyond The Sprues

Current and Finished Projects => Profiles and Pixels => Topic started by: apophenia on January 13, 2012, 09:57:03 AM

Title: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 13, 2012, 09:57:03 AM
How do all! I tend to bash pixels from existing images (and I'll try to be diligent about crediting sources).

I like prototypes, one-offs and other odd-balls -- even for whifs. So, first up is our masthead Chimera in prototype form ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 13, 2012, 09:59:25 AM
Next up is an oldie, the first Canadian Forces Sukhoi CF-189 being escorting to CFB Bagotville by a CF-18M.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 13, 2012, 03:28:37 PM
Mate, you get a special commendation for doing the chimera prototype!

(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/paintballqmaster/smiley-thumbsup.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on January 13, 2012, 04:15:47 PM
Nice to have you here! Excellent chimera :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 13, 2012, 08:42:39 PM
Good to see you here, Apophenia! Any chance of you reposting your AW Aries/Armadillo here?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 13, 2012, 10:56:04 PM
Excellent!

Great to see your work again!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on January 13, 2012, 11:27:44 PM
Nicely Done! :)
 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on January 14, 2012, 02:15:39 AM
Those are great :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 14, 2012, 06:19:27 AM
Wow, great welcome. Cheers lads!

Any chance of you reposting your AW Aries/Armadillo here?

For sure EH -- including the Hyena testbed you recommended ... in your earlier incarnation  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 14, 2012, 06:23:15 AM
BTW, the Armstrong-Whitworth backstory was predicated upon licencing PZL designs to make use of AW's metal construction experience. Here's the operational outcomes (for P.11/24 and a P.23 evolution).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 14, 2012, 09:22:03 AM
Mmmm...I really like the P.23/AW123

...I also have a 1/48 P.24G in the stash already planned to be a RAF alternate to the Gloster Gladiator...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 14, 2012, 10:01:52 AM
Thanks! I'd forgotten about the Africanus. Beautiful work! Oh, & I obviously love the Hyena-equipped variants!  ;) 

May I ask where you got a side view of the Hyena from?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 14, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
Thanks lads.

Greg: I wish now that I'd done a version of the Armadillo with underwing Vickers 40mm guns.

[Edit: Now I have ... http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg4596#msg4596 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg4596#msg4596) ]

EH: Yeah, I think I was out ona thin branch with the Africanus  ;)  I never did find a sideview of the Hyena. So, I had to (ick, ack!) paint one myself.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 14, 2012, 03:26:56 PM
Do you have more views of Panther mailplane? A 3-view would be lovely.

 :icon_fsm: :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 14, 2012, 07:24:05 PM
It's great to see you posting, apophenia!

Oh and my what lovely spats you have!!!
 :-*
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 14, 2012, 08:39:28 PM
Quote
I never did find a sideview of the Hyena. So, I had to (ick, ack!) paint one myself.

In that case, doubly well done! I've only seen a front-on and front-quarter view in the Armstrong Whitworth Putnam myself. The A.W. XVI is a little cracker!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Bladerunner on January 15, 2012, 05:42:36 AM
Very nice, especially like the Chimera and the Sukhoi CF 189.  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 15, 2012, 12:18:28 PM
Cheers Bladerunner. The CF-189 retouch was fun. I probably overdid the weathering on the CF-18 but wanted it to look suitably beat-up (don't want to outshine the new kid!).

Next up is an alternative-alternative take on Litvak's AltCan scenario. There's a backstory for the CX-112 but it's a bit too long for here.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 15, 2012, 12:29:52 PM
Do you have more views of Panther mailplane? A 3-view would be lovely.


Alas, I ditched the original sideview (there never was a 3-view). What I had in mind for the Panther was a re-engined prototype AW.123 with the rear cockpit smoothly faired over to become a mail compartment.

See below: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg4597#msg4597 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg4597#msg4597)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: taiidantomcat on January 16, 2012, 12:13:00 AM
Nice!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 16, 2012, 01:58:42 AM
Brilliant Idea!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on January 16, 2012, 05:39:30 AM
Excellent ones
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 16, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Cheers Bladerunner. The CF-189 retouch was fun. I probably overdid the weathering on the CF-18 but wanted it to look suitably beat-up (don't want to outshine the new kid!).

Next up is an alternative-alternative take on Litvak's AltCan scenario. There's a backstory for the CX-112 but it's a bit too long for here.
That's gorgeous and it's got a great family resemblance to both the CF-100 and the C-102.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on January 16, 2012, 10:22:11 AM
That's gorgeous and it's got a great family resemblance to both the CF-100 and the C-102.

Doesn't it, though? The whole thing just screams "Avro". I love it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 17, 2012, 01:45:28 AM
I love this thread.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2012, 05:39:51 AM
That's gorgeous and it's got a great family resemblance to both the CF-100 and the C-102.

Thanks. I forgot to mention that the CX-112 used the canopy from the 'Clunk'. In the backstory, Avro is responding to a GoC dictat to focus on military projects. The C.102 engines were meant to be for the prototype only with twin Orenda turbofans planned for the production model.
Title: Big-Gun Armadillo
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2012, 05:43:23 AM
It turns out that I didn't dump the Armstrong Whitworth original -- just bozoed the file names ;P

So, for Greg, here's an AW.24 Armadillo with twin Vickers 40mm S guns...
Title: Panther-Powered Mailplane
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2012, 05:45:25 AM
... and full sideviews of that AW.123 mailplane (sorry Jon, still no 3-views)
Title: Jetliner and Cosmopolitan
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2012, 06:19:28 AM
And here's another Avro Canada-related offering. In the backstory, the Jetliner prototype serves in the RCAF but, at the GoC's order, that airliner project is transferred to Canadair.

Canadair later evolves the C.102 airframe into a twin RR Dart transport called the Cosmopolitan.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 17, 2012, 06:23:58 AM
Now we need a 1/72 C102 Jetliner to build all these beautiful birds.  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 17, 2012, 10:14:21 AM
Now we need a 1/72 C102 Jetliner to build all these beautiful birds.  :)

Indeed!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2012, 06:07:02 AM
Now we need a 1/72 C102 Jetliner to build all these beautiful birds.  :)

There was a rumour on IRSM site that Sharkit was going to produce a 1/72 Jetliner. No sign of it yet on Sharkit's website. Mind you, they've released a CL-84 in 1/72nd so hope springs!

Anyone know Renaud Mangallon? Maybe a nudge is required before Sharkit pups?  ;)
Title: Canadair-Douglas CC-233
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2012, 06:11:58 AM
Next installment for the alternative AltCan: the Canadair-Douglas CC-233 Labrador.

With Douglas ending C-133B project, the time was right for a joint venture. A shortened C-133 fuselage was mated to CL-44 wings, tail, and Tyne turboprops. The RCAF used the CC-233 Labrador to shuttle NATO fighters to Europe.

Unfortunately for Douglas, the USAF didn't bite. Hopes had been pinned on riding on USAF CL-44 orders. When that [RW] MATS order fell through, so too did any chance of a USAF 'C-233'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JoseFern on January 18, 2012, 08:30:14 AM
Lovely AW.123 mailplanes. :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2012, 12:20:54 PM
One for Tophe  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 18, 2012, 12:56:23 PM
One for Tophe  ;)
Very nice blend of Noratlas and AT3.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 18, 2012, 02:56:24 PM
Those Labradors are great!

Even better is that you made one based at Namao, I grew up watching Hercules from there pass over town all the time.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 18, 2012, 03:19:20 PM
Re: the AW 123, I gather that your starting point was the P.23,
and were you thinking increased span or the same as the P.23?

(http://themekgpproject.com/_posted_files_/P-images/karas_2_3v.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Flitzer on January 18, 2012, 04:36:56 PM
Lovely, just lovely work as usual.

P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 18, 2012, 05:13:25 PM
Love your recent work.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 18, 2012, 07:21:49 PM
Re: CC-233 Labrador: Nice doggy.  :)

What would a C-124 Landseer look like?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 19, 2012, 06:13:08 AM
Cheers chaps -- much appreciated!

Upnorth: more Namao-based transports to come ...

Jon: Yes, the P.23 was my starting point for the AW.123. For the prototype, the rear fuselage and tailplane are almost identical to the Karas'. So too are the outer wing panels. The centre section would be widened slightly to take the twin engines and 'holed' to accommodate the retracted wheels.

TBG: The Landseer would, of course, be an air-sea rescue type painted in a distinctive black and white scheme. Popular with pilots (and the rescued) but less so with ground crews who had to mop up POL spills (aka Landseer 'slobber').
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 19, 2012, 06:16:17 AM
'North: as promised, here's some more Namao-based heavies.

The Keewatin filled a gap between tactical and strategic transport for the RCAF. Another windy backstory but, long story/shorter: CC-152A is a Kawasaki C-1 outfitted for the RCAF by Canadair. The CC-152B was a trials conversion to BE.53 Pegasus (Bristol Aero Engines Canada). The production STOL variant was the CC-152C.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 19, 2012, 09:06:28 AM
Interesting transports!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 20, 2012, 09:52:13 AM
Thanks EH. And now for something a little more bellicose -- the Avro Belenus bomber.

Belenus ('brilliant'), BTW, was the celtic Sun-God. Seemed to fit for a nuclear-armed bomber.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 20, 2012, 11:06:18 AM
Brilliant!!!  :)

I am quite sure the RCAF flew these. Do you have a picture of these one bad boys in 428 SQN markings?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 20, 2012, 02:05:11 PM
Brilliant!!!  :)

I am quite sure the RCAF flew these. Do you have a picture of these one bad boys in 428 SQN markings?

Nooooo!  408 Sqn.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Flitzer on January 20, 2012, 07:11:54 PM
Thanks EH. And now for something a little more bellicose -- the Avro Belenus bomber.

Belenus ('brilliant'), BTW, was the celtic Sun-God. Seemed to fit for a nuclear-armed bomber.
Agree 100%.
Stunning concept.

P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 20, 2012, 08:29:59 PM
Brilliant!!!  :)

I am quite sure the RCAF flew these. Do you have a picture of these one bad boys in 428 SQN markings?

Nooooo!  408 Sqn.  ;)

Goose over Ghost? No way!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 21, 2012, 03:57:17 AM
Great work!  One could probably model that in plastic too!
Title: RCAF Avro Belenus
Post by: apophenia on January 21, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Thanks Greg. Reshaping the leading edge/original intakes would the tricky bit, I'd think.

RCAF Belenus: I've dodged the 408/428 bun-fight (since everyone will remember that RCAF Belenus on Black Bucks didn't carry unit markings or even serials).

So here she is: a 4x8 Sqn Belenus inbound to Port Stanley. Just spotted by an Argie patrol boat, the FE is launching flares while the pilots start jinking...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 21, 2012, 12:22:09 PM
Tricky but not impossible.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 21, 2012, 12:33:17 PM
Pretty...

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 21, 2012, 09:46:16 PM
Your Belenus is fantastic, Apophenia! I really like the idea of the RCAF participating in the Falklands conflict. Adds another dimension to the story.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2012, 12:06:46 PM
Thanks lads. One puzzle on the Belenus is where to put the air brakes. I'm guessing outboard from the Vulcan position (which would be directly in front of the Belenus' intakes).

Tricky but not impossible.
Nope, PSR, repeat, PSR, repeat ...  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
Just goofing around with this one -- I have a soft spot for the Brewster Buffalo (and similar mutts).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 23, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
Ah, very neat.  Looks somewhat like an overweight P-64.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 23, 2012, 01:38:05 AM
Belated congratulations for the Chimera. And new congratulations for the beautiful Belenus. :)
Title: Re: RCAF Avro Belenus
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 23, 2012, 02:16:15 AM
Thanks Greg. Reshaping the leading edge/original intakes would the tricky bit, I'd think.

RCAF Belenus: I've dodged the 408/428 bun-fight (since everyone will remember that RCAF Belenus on Black Bucks didn't carry unit markings or even serials).

So here she is: a 4x8 Sqn Belenus inbound to Port Stanley. Just spotted by an Argie patrol boat, the FE is launching flares while the pilots start jinking...


That's cheating. No Squadron markings.  ;D

Nice job on the BB profile.

BTW there is book written about the first BB mission, pilot, Martin Whithers: Vulcan 607: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/may/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview5 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/may/20/featuresreviews.guardianreview5)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 23, 2012, 02:20:36 AM
Thanks lads. One puzzle on the Belenus is where to put the air brakes. I'm guessing outboard from the Vulcan position (which would be directly in front of the Belenus' intakes).


How about split aileron arrangement?

(http://www.wallpaperpimper.com/wallpaper/Military/A6_Intruder/A6-Intruder-3-BK420SUXGH-1024x768.jpg)
net photo

(http://image60.webshots.com/760/0/35/29/2677035290021366276ywNyBf_ph.jpg)
net photo

I believe the B-2 bomber has it as well.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 23, 2012, 04:40:50 AM
Thanks lads. One puzzle on the Belenus is where to put the air brakes. I'm guessing outboard from the Vulcan position (which would be directly in front of the Belenus' intakes).


How about split aileron arrangement?

([url]http://www.wallpaperpimper.com/wallpaper/Military/A6_Intruder/A6-Intruder-3-BK420SUXGH-1024x768.jpg[/url])
net photo

I believe the B-2 bomber has it as well.


It does.  Perhaps the Belenus could also have airbrakes on the top and bottom of the fuselage?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 24, 2012, 08:23:42 AM
...  Perhaps the Belenus could also have airbrakes on the top and bottom of the fuselage?

Thanks Evan. That'd work but I decided to go with Upnorth's split-ailerons only (although it's hard to tell!)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 24, 2012, 08:27:46 AM
Another oldie ... French-licenced Defiants. Hey, if Boulton Paul could licence the SAMM turret, why couldn't SAMM licence the Defiant  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 24, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
Sweet! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 24, 2012, 08:01:22 PM
Nice Defiants!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2012, 08:31:27 AM
Nice Defiants!

Thank EH. [Edit: here's a pair of desert Defiants ... can ya tell I have a thing about S-Guns?]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2012, 06:02:06 AM
Should be writable again now - though do heed Jon's warning here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=341.msg6024#new).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 26, 2012, 07:17:54 AM
Thank Greg, will do. Now, more on that Armstrong-Whitworth Pulaski theme.

The AW.124K was the Kestrel-powered back-up for the Hyena-powered AW.24M/AW.124. Basic armament consisted of twin .303" machineguns synchronised to fire through the propeller disc with the possibility of another four .303"s in the wings. An unbuilt option was the AW.124HS powered by an Hispano-Suiza 12X with a 20mm moteur-canon plus wing guns.

The AW.224 Aries II Export Fighter was the prototype AW.124 re-engined with an AS Panther air-cooled radial. No series orders followed but this aircraft served with the air force of the 'Kwangsi Clique' until written-off in a wheels-up accident in late 1934.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2012, 07:19:05 AM
Mmmm....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: sotoolslinger on January 26, 2012, 11:35:23 AM
Like the heck out of your last offerings :) :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 26, 2012, 09:10:42 PM
Nice Defiantviks!

As for your latest AWs, great designs but I thought Kwangsi AF was independent and used the triangular markings for a bit after 1934? Certainly by '36/37 they were wearing Canton markings. I ask because I intend to put some of those triangular markings on a couple of mid-30s projects of my own.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: McGreig on January 27, 2012, 01:56:50 AM
Love the French Defiants - another one for the why-didn't-I-think-of-that list.

I thought Kwangsi AF was independent and used the triangular markings for a bit after 1934?

Lennart Andersson's “A History of Chinese Aviation” has a section on the Kwangsi Air Force and most of the photos do show aircraft prior to 1937 with a large triangular marking.

The triangle appears to have been white with a thick black border but on some aircraft with dark coloured fuselages (Wapiti, AW-16, Avro 637) the triangle colours are reversed and there are also some machines which appear to have a black-outlined white disc instead of a triangle. So no RLM or Air Ministry civil servant types in Kwangsi then - - -

Also, most photos show only the fuselage – the only photo giving a clear view of the wings is of a crashed Avro 631 which has triangles on its fuselage, a triangle on its port wing upper-surface and a more conventional Chinese star on a red-outlined blue disc (as in Apophenia's AW profile) on its starboard wing!?!?!?

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 27, 2012, 03:22:30 AM
^ Yes I have that book. I think the confusion lays in Kwangsi's state of only "semi-independence". I think that crashed Avro was just hedging bets as to who allegiance had to be sworn to that week.  ;)

Regardless, Kwangsi is a great way of getting 30's British stuff in colours other than the usual suspects.  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 27, 2012, 08:08:49 AM
I really like your AW Aries and I think the Kwangsi version could fool many!

Super work, Apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geoff on January 28, 2012, 03:46:54 AM
Nice Defiants!

Thank EH. [Edit: here's a pair of desert Defiants ... can ya tell I have a thing about S-Guns?]

These two I really like!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 28, 2012, 10:52:58 AM
I find the whole subject of Kwangsi markings is really convoluted. Some aircraft showed a mix of Kwangsi and Cantonese-style red-outlined KMT stars. Then there's tail stars or rudder striping of varying styles.

One source claims that the Triangle replaced the KMT star. Others say the reverse. That seems more likely but the Kwangsi AF wasn't amalgamated with Nationalist forces until July 1937. So did they amalgamate with the Cantonese AF before the main KMT force? My head's spinning ...
Title: A Herculean Chinook?
Post by: apophenia on January 28, 2012, 10:54:23 AM
Another oldie: a tandem rotor Hercules derivative.
Title: Re: A Herculean Chinook?
Post by: elmayerle on January 28, 2012, 12:55:30 PM
Another oldie: a tandem rotor Hercules derivative.
Makes as much sense as the Mil Mi-12 though I prefer some of the more recent gyrodyne Hercules derivative.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2012, 02:14:22 AM
I seem to recall there being a real proposal along these lines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 29, 2012, 02:33:51 AM
I seem to recall there being a real proposal along these lines.
Which lines?  The gyrodyne Hercules proposal is fairly recent.  A Hercules fuselage was mooted for the proposed technology demonstrator for the Quad Tilt Rotor (kinda want to see that done with an AN-12 fuselage to give a tail gun) but I don't remember seeing this particular twin-rotor variant of the Hercules fuselage.  OTOH, I can see such an aircraft using the rotors from the CH-53E to deal with all the power there.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2012, 03:18:44 AM
I was talking about apophenia's twin-rotor variant of the Hercules.  I will try to dig up the drawing in question.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2012, 04:22:01 AM
From Scott Lowther's Blog and supposedly circa 1963:

(http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/c130-chopper.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: sotoolslinger on January 29, 2012, 07:10:27 AM
Diggin on the Heli Herc :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2012, 07:14:13 AM
Greg: Yes, that 1963 Lockheed-California study was my jumping off point. But I was going for a more conventional (albeit winged), Chinook-style tandem rotor rather than a stop rotor type.

Evan: I liked those GBA GyroLifter concepts as well. And they'd certainly be faster than an overgrown Chinook!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2012, 07:16:20 AM
Another Hercules oldie ... (mentioned as a concept elsewhere on Beyond the Sprues).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2012, 07:18:49 AM
Ah yes.  A quick check of the power offerings of the engines:

C-130H:
4 x Allison T56-A-15 turboprops, 4,300 bhp (3,210 kW) each = total of 6240 kW per wing;

C-130J
4× Rolls-Royce AE 2100D3 turboprops, 4,637 shp (3,458 kW) each = 6916 kW per wing;

Speculative C-130TP400 twin:
2 x EuroProp International TP400-D6 turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each = 8250 kW per wing!

Certainly is appealing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2012, 07:26:52 AM
Maybe Lockheed Martin should add a twin TP400 option to their 'C-130XL' concept?  ;)
Title: Canard Hellcat
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2012, 07:37:15 AM
A bit of silliness (inspired by Tophe) ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 29, 2012, 07:49:19 AM
I wonder if those were driven rotors or if it was a twin-rotor autogyro?  Either way, 'twould make a fascinating model and the Soviet equivalent, made from an AN-12 would be fascinating.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2012, 11:16:57 AM
Evan: There's a very short piece in Flight for 28 Feb 1963
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200295.html?search=Lockheed%20California (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200295.html?search=Lockheed%20California)

Flight described the Lockheed-California concept as a "Hybrid Helicopter" capable of V/STOL take-off. That suggests powered rotors but isn't really conclusive.

The image came from the Lockheed-California Newsbureau which described the design (rather redundantly) as a "Hybrid Heli-Plane", saying that this "cargo carrier ... would be able to take off and land helicopter-style." Again, not really conclusive.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 29, 2012, 12:25:56 PM
Evan: There's a very short piece in Flight for 28 Feb 1963
[url]http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200295.html?search=Lockheed%20California[/url] ([url]http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%200295.html?search=Lockheed%20California[/url])

Flight described the Lockheed-California concept as a "Hybrid Helicopter" capable of V/STOL take-off. That suggests powered rotors but isn't really conclusive.

The image came from the Lockheed-California Newsbureau which described the design (rather redundantly) as a "Hybrid Heli-Plane", saying that this "cargo carrier ... would be able to take off and land helicopter-style." Again, not really conclusive.

No, not conclusive at all and there are elements in that illustration that don't bear out.  Either those two engines are much larger than the T56 or there're other engines somewhere if those rotors are powered.  Too, the gearing,driveshafts, and cross-shafting using just those engines looks to be "interesting" and trouble prone.  I'd be more inclined to believe in powered rotors if there were other engines shown (say, at the base of the rear pylon ala' CH-46 and CH-47.  I think I'd go for the more recently proposed gyroplane conversion for a vstol Hercules unless you want to revisit the 4xPegasus one Lockheed-Georgia showed back in 1972.
Title: Tilt Wing Hercules
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
Or we just dump those pesky rotors altogether  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 30, 2012, 11:00:15 AM
I like that, though I think the hinge point needs to be farther forward (check out the XC-142, CL-84, and X-18).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 31, 2012, 07:04:00 AM
Cheers José!

Evan: I put the hinge point just in front of the rear spar like the CL-84 (although it was actually the CL-246 that I had in mind). Or do I have the rear spar for the C-130 in the wrong spot?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 31, 2012, 08:56:01 AM
You may well have it right, I just thought the rear of the wing dropped farther down on the fuselage.  I'm pretty sure the XC-142 wing was hinged farther forward.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 31, 2012, 10:28:57 AM
Evan: not sure about the hinge point on the XC-142. On the CL-89 the wing drops down further. But, by comparison, the Dynavert had really deep-chord flaps/ailerons compared with the Hercules.

If this was for real, probably better all around to design a new wing for the C-130 with forward slats, etc.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 03, 2012, 06:54:18 AM
Another oldie ... this is the first prototype CU-100 drone (a conversion of the Avro Canada CF-100).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 03, 2012, 08:17:58 AM
That's a very cool concept, Apophenia and you could fool a lot of people with such realistic rendering!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 03, 2012, 10:55:54 AM
Thanks Brian. BTW, the new engines were meant to be Rolls-Royce BR710 (which are slightly smaller diameter than the original Orendas.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on February 03, 2012, 12:43:34 PM
Sent the C-130 tilt wing picture to a young guy I know who works at Lockheed.  Asked if he has done work on this.  Said - "Nope, but it would be fun if I did!"
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 07, 2012, 12:07:33 PM
Cheers Bill -- that is too cool!

Here's another oldie. There was a RW proposal for a twin-fan BAe 146 ... not sure about a swing-tail  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 07, 2012, 07:18:32 PM
Very interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2012, 05:31:28 AM
Thanks JP. For most military applications, a rear ramp works better. But, for straight palletized cargo work, it's hard to beat the simplicity of the old Canadair CL-44 swing-tail  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 09, 2012, 11:19:09 AM
Going back to Litvak's AltCan concept, here's some armour themes -- those are 'ground targets' to you aviation-only types  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 10, 2012, 07:49:57 AM
Back to airborne targeters ... this is the CA-142 Gonzo Gunship  ;)
Title: Re: Canard Hellcat
Post by: Tophe on February 10, 2012, 12:22:30 PM
A bit of silliness (inspired by Tophe) ...
:-* Congratulations! This is better than I could have done myself!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 11, 2012, 03:08:59 AM
Back to airborne targeters ... this is the CA-142 Gonzo Gunship  ;)

Appropriate name!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 11, 2012, 03:36:30 AM
Like the Gonzo
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: LemonJello on February 11, 2012, 10:38:37 PM
([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=1460;image[/url])
Missed this one ... I love what you did with the clunk!  :-*

That's a beauty! Put a V-tail on her and I'd have to start searching for kits/parts to make one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 11, 2012, 11:04:46 PM
Dear Apophenia,
Your CU-100 had a shadow on the port wing root, maybe for a port turbojet, but is this CU-100A below an asymmetric aircraft? asymmetric drone, what an oddity!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/cu-100A.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on February 12, 2012, 08:27:15 AM
Is that 40mm sticking out the aft door of the Gonzo Gunship one of the oft-travelled Boffins? You know, the ones from the carriers that went on to airfield defence in Germany and then to the Kingston class?  ;)

I wonder what it would look like in Transport Canada Surveillance markings?  >:D

Well Done!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on February 12, 2012, 11:09:53 AM
Back to airborne targeters ... this is the CA-142 Gonzo Gunship  ;)

I was going to make a comment about the little known 1998 Beaver, Otter, Moose and Elk (BOME) pronounced Boom, uprising that almost over threw the Canadian Gov't if were not for Gonzo taking care of the ring leaders, Castor canadensis. With few well placed rounds of the 40MM cannon into the secret rebel HQ which was later revealed to be an unassuming Beaver Lodge located in Algonquin Park on the Lake of Two Rivers, just a few hours away from Ottawa. It was taking place right under our noses. Close call folks.

Gonzo saved the day.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2012, 12:42:37 PM
Thanks guys!

I was going to make a comment about the little known 1998 Beaver, Otter, Moose and Elk (BOME) pronounced Boom, uprising that almost over threw the Canadian Gov't if were not for Gonzo taking care of the ring leaders, Castor canadensis. With few well placed rounds of the 40MM cannon into the secret rebel HQ which was later revealed to be an unassuming Beaver Lodge located in Algonquin Park on the Lake of Two Rivers, just a few hours away from Ottawa. It was taking place right under our noses. Close call folks.

Gonzo saved the day.

He he. A few well-placed Bofors rounds -- just what Canadian politcs has been missing  ;D

Silver Fox: No point wasting those L/60s. 'Boffin' to the rescue once again  ;)
Title: Austria Divided Armour
Post by: apophenia on February 13, 2012, 11:24:23 AM
A pair of armoured vehicles from Upnorth's Austria storyline. Both are air defence derivatives of the Canaan IFV.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=358.msg8457#msg8457 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=358.msg8457#msg8457)

Left: CCV ADATS (aka Medium Armoured Mobile Air Defence Vehicle) of 119 Bty, Royal Canadian Artillery. CFB Gagetown, May 1994.

Right:
Canaan Mk.VI (Oto Melara SIDAM 25 turret) refurbished and upgraded for an unannounced export customer. On display (alongside Canaan Otomatic prototype in similar scheme) at Eurosatory 2006.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 13, 2012, 02:35:46 PM
Those AD Canaans are great!

The ADATS turret looks really good on it.
Title: Re: Austria Divided Armour
Post by: M.A.D on February 13, 2012, 07:02:33 PM
A pair of armoured vehicles from Upnorth's Austria storyline. Both are air defence derivatives of the Canaan IFV.
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=358.msg8457#msg8457[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=358.msg8457#msg8457[/url])

Left: CCV ADATS (aka Medium Armoured Mobile Air Defence Vehicle) of 119 Bty, Royal Canadian Artillery. CFB Gagetown, May 1994.

Right:
Canaan Mk.VI (Oto Melara SIDAM 25 turret) refurbished and upgraded for an unannounced export customer. On display (alongside Canaan Otomatic prototype in similar scheme) at Eurosatory 2006.


Hey great work apophenia - the off-the-shelf systems adaptation I both like and appreciate! Especially with the fact that the Canadians, like my army lack any sensible or effective anti aircraft guns at all let alone SPAAG!!

Any chance of you incorporate a Krauss-Maffei Wildcat 30mm SPAAG turret, or the South Korean K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) SPAAG turret? Which I believe was itself an adaptation of the Wildcat system

M.A.D
   
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 13, 2012, 09:49:17 PM
Great work!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 14, 2012, 02:23:47 AM
The Canaan Mk.VI looks evil! >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 15, 2012, 07:35:22 AM
Thanks guys. Here's some more Canaan IFV derivatives -- this time, direct-fire support variants.

Left: An ex-Austrian Jagdpanzer Kürassier in Slovenian colours. Armed with PaK 90s in FL-11 turrets, this vehicle was known locally as the SPT (Samovozni Protitankovski Top). In Slovene service, the SPT acted as a Reserves unit tank destroyer backing up the frontline T-55s.

This SPT's indivual vehicle number is obscured by camo nets and somewhat beat-up recognition tapes (applied to front and rear corners) need replacing.

Right: Another SDS vehicle in promotional colours. The Negev FSV sprang from SDS' post Cold War T-54/55 update program. With a brisk market for rebuilt T-55s, the SDS back lot filled up with unwanted Soviet turrets and D-10 guns. As an export gambit, the T-55 turrets were fitted to surplus North Sinai Canaan Mk.I hulls.

This example illustrates the penultimate Negev offering complete with MEXAS armour panels and even turret-mounted Strela-10 missiles for defence from low-flying aircraft. The only option missing was a 105mm L7 main gun. Most Negev customers went for the plain-Jane model. The D-10 was adequate for the fire support role as was the original Canaan armour plate.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 15, 2012, 08:26:32 AM
Great stuff, apophenia! I sure wouldn't want to meet either of those in a dark alley!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Austria Divided Armour
Post by: apophenia on February 15, 2012, 12:03:17 PM
Cheers Brian. The goal is to make 'em realistic (even flawed) but it's best if they look tough too  ;)

Any chance of you incorporate a Krauss-Maffei Wildcat 30mm SPAAG turret, or the South Korean K-30 Biho (Flying Tiger) SPAAG turret? Which I believe was itself an adaptation of the Wildcat system

Here ya go ...

A joint project by SDS and South Korean Doosan DST (formerly Daewoo). The SK30 Bi Ho/Sharav mounts Doosan's AD turret on the Canaan hulls as an alternative to the Doosan K21 IFV. This combination was attractive to existing Canaan users -- especially those which had chosen 30mm main guns for their IFVs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 15, 2012, 02:36:04 PM
Hmmmm.....

Those are looking very sharp indeed.  My Canaan is turning into a very adaptable beast indeed.

Thanks for bringing some more life to the idea! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 17, 2012, 09:08:05 AM
upnorth: Canaan is an adaptable beast indeed. Here's the last for a bit (gotta get on with the Group Build stuff!) ...
_______________________

SNS/Enasa-Pegaso Cortés

In 1996, SNS entered into an agreement with Enasa SA to produce Canaan derivatives in Spain. Under this agreement, SNS would provide hull components which would integrate with powertrains and locally-produced turret systems at the Enasa-Pegaso facility in Barcelona. This resulted in a distinct Spanish Canaan family which Enasa-Pegaso had distribution rights throughout Iberia and Latin America.

Vehículo Combate Cortés Family

The Spanish Canaan was marketed as the Cortés and, turrets aside, differed from the North Sinai original in having MAN diesels (MAN and Daimler-Benz having bought Enasa back in 1990). The first Cortés models were powered by 820 hp MAN D2840 V10s. Beginning in 1998, the V10 was eclipsed by the lighter, more compact 750 hp MAN D28 V8 diesel.

Turret supply for Cortés variants was diverse. The original Canaan OTO Melara turret was available for export versions but, for its IFV, Spain's Ejército de Tierra chose a local design by Santa Bárbara Sistemas. This vehicle entered Spanish service as the VCI (Vehículo Combate Infantería) and was marketed abroad as the Guepardo VCI-30. SDS knew this type as the Canaan IFV 30E.

Cortés Direct-Fire-Support Variants

An unusual Cortés variant was the fire-support VADFI (Vehículo del Apoyo Directa de Fuego de la Infantería). This heavy IFV mounted a German Thyssen-Henschel Begleitpanzer turret armed with the 57mm Bofors gun and a TOW missile launcher. Cortés VAMF was marketed abroad as the Puma ADF-57 (with optional HOT launcher). SDS knew this type as the Canaan FSV 57E.

The Cortés VADFI/Puma ADF-57 operated as both infantry fire-support and as anti-recce vehicle platforms. Not illustrated is the bigger-gunned Cortés variant which could rightly be regarded as a medium tank.

The Cortés VAMF (Vehículo del Apoyo Móvil de Fuego) was fitted with Thyssen-Henschel's TH 301 turret armed with a Rheinmetall 105mm Rh 105-30 main gun. Enasa-Pegaso marketed the Cortés VAMF abroad as the León AMF. SDS knew this type as the Canaan FSV 105E.

Enasa-Pegaso designed two other big-gunned Cortés variants that failed to find customers. The Tigre AMF was similar to the León/Cortés VAMF but fitted with the OTO Melara Hitfact turret and armed with low-pressure 105mm or 120mm main gun. A more radical departure from the Canaan parentage was the Oso VCA (Vehículo de Combate de Artillería) project.

The Oso VCA was to be an SP howitzer derivative of the Cortés. Otobreda's 155mm Palmaria turret was to be mounted on a lengthened Cortés chassis (returning to the Leopard MBT's seven roadwheels per side). A 900hp MAN V10 diesel would have powered the Oso VCA (aka Canaan SPH 155E). Neither the Ejército nor potential export customers took up the Oso VCA.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 17, 2012, 02:22:48 PM
Great stuff! Can't wait for more when you get time. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Rafael on February 17, 2012, 09:31:15 PM
Great stuff! Can't wait for more when you get time. :)

Seconded!

That is a great family of tracked vehicles, in fact, you've given me an idea, and I have an old ROCO miniatures gepard spaag just waiting to be molded and produced in these guises
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 18, 2012, 03:16:26 AM

That is a great family of tracked vehicles, in fact, you've given me an idea, and I have an old ROCO miniatures gepard spaag just waiting to be molded and produced in these guises

Yes, Apophenia is doing a great job with my Canaan. I wouldn't have imagined most of the spin offs he's posting here.

I'd love to see what you do with your Roco tank.

I recently bought a Revell 1/72 Leopard 2A4 to make a Canaan VI from.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 18, 2012, 06:01:53 AM
Ack  :o  I mounted the wrong version of the Cortés variants! So, here's the right one ...  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 18, 2012, 07:30:31 AM
Even though I prefer Spanish Republican markings, I'd make an exception for your awesome Cortés, apophenia! You have a real gift for profiles!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 19, 2012, 08:01:35 AM
Cheers Brian. Here's an oldie more to your tastes ... ¡Viva la República!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on February 19, 2012, 09:39:48 AM
^ Oh, that one's subtle. Put it on a table between other Spanish Civil War stuff and no one will be any the wiser.

Love the Canaans! Awesome beasts!  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2012, 12:19:52 PM
Thanks Moritz. That one was part of a series of vehicles and aircraft of a Republican faction that fought on in North Africa on the Allied side in World War II.

For my take on the CC-138C Guardian in Silver Fox's "Malignent Mustelid" thread, see:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=884.msg9535#msg9535 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=884.msg9535#msg9535)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: abtex on February 20, 2012, 02:18:41 PM
Nice work. :)

What does the Cortés variants turrets on sdkfz chassic look like. Longer body hanging beyond wheel well. Maybe without the rivits and Birdcage 'armor' added.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 20, 2012, 05:26:54 PM
Cheers Brian. Here's an oldie more to your tastes ... ¡Viva la República!

Ahh it warms my heart to see those Republican markings and my old friend Durruti mentioned again! Viva la Quinte Brigada!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 21, 2012, 10:39:55 AM
Oh, who can resist ... here's another oldie for ya, BdB  ;)
¡Viva la Columna Durruti!  ¡Viva la Federación Anarquista Ibérica!

abtex: Hmmm, a Republican Cortés ...  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 22, 2012, 07:27:34 AM
Mmmm these just keep getting better and better, apophenia!

I wonder if the Abraham Lincoln Brigade is in your alternate Spanish Civil War as well?

I take it this is after la Columna Durruti took Melilla?

¡Más excelente!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 22, 2012, 11:46:16 AM
Brian: A potted history ... Like other soldiers of las Brigadas Internacionales, members of the Abraham Lincoln Battalion began to leave Spain in October 1938. With Franco's victory, a Mexico-based Republican government in exile was established. After September 1939, efforts were made to re-join the armed struggle against Fascism but France and Britain showed little interest. It was the US entry into the War that changed Republican fortunes.

The Allied powers agreed that a Spanish Republican force could be formed by combining the Spanish contingents already established in Mexico and the Soviet Union. Once joined, this Nuevo Ejército Republicano force took part in Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North Africa.

Under the agreement with the Allies, nationals from the US, British Commonwealth, or Soviet Union could not join the NER. But, from inception, I Brigada Mixta del NER had international brigade units. These were drawn mostly from Latin America but also from refugees from the Fascist states of Europe -- primarily Germans and Italians but also other Europeans.

My illustrations all emphasizing the gleaned origins of NER equipment. But that was true of recruiting in North Africa as well. The new Brigadas Internacionales were swollen by fresh recruits taken from the captive Vichy Légion étrangère. Persistant rumors suggested that former members of the Lincoln-Washington Battalion were among those recruits.  ;)

Not all of the Morocco and Algeria stockade recruits were foreigners. One very willing  recruit was Cipriano Mera who had joined the Légion étrangère from an Oran prison in 1940. The former chief of the Republican 14th Division, Lt-Col Mera became the most celebrated commanders of the NER's Columna Anarquista ... including the famous 21ª Batallón de Infantería Mecanizada ('Durruti').
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 22, 2012, 05:22:52 PM
¡Fantástico!

Your alternate history, especially the bit about Operation Torch, makes much more sense than anything my fevered imagination could come up with, apophenia!

¡Viva la Brigada Mixta del NER!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 22, 2012, 08:01:14 PM
Great tank! T(h)ank you ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 23, 2012, 11:43:21 AM
Thanks lads.

Brian: The original concept came from Arc3371 on 'that other site'. It was called Spanish Civil War - The Rematch. I took the timeline to the point of throwing the Fachas out of Africa. Arc' was going to handle the Reconquista but I think the writing stalled.

In my timeline/scenario, the NER takes part in Sicily but not Italy proper. After that, the NER becomes a North African occupation/security force. That allows them to glean Axis kit from Algerian, Tunisian, and Libyan dumps and build up their fighting strength. With that, the NER liberates Ifni, Sáhara Español, the Canaries, and the Protectorado Español de Marruecos.

The Spanish Republican goverment-in-exile (NGREE, the Nuevo Gobierno Republicano Español en el Exilio) also sued for the release of Abd-el-Krim from French incarceration on Réunion. The Spanish Saharan province of Saguia el-Hamra would become the second Tagduda n Arif (Rif Republic) later encouraged to expand into Río de Oro, Ifni, and Morocco (where it met stiff post-War French colonial opposition).

I had a whole series of Nuevo Ejército Republicano - Cuerpo Aéreo (NERCA) Bf-109s but I think I dumped most of them. Here's a survivor - one NERCA 'G-2 and one Ejército del Aire version.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 23, 2012, 04:28:01 PM
They look great.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 23, 2012, 07:12:02 PM
Yes,me likey !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 24, 2012, 03:54:34 AM
Gracias for more on the alt. history and for those two very excellent 109s, apophenia! I'm very impressed by your attention to detail, especially the under-wing USAAF marking and the cool little "anti-fascista" emblem on the nose which reminds me of a very well-known Republican poster. Outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: EdA Messerschmitts
Post by: apophenia on February 24, 2012, 08:31:25 AM
Thanks guys! Brian: those under-wing USAAF roundels were used on all NERCA aircraft in North Africa. Handy when you're flying Messerschmitts above Allied gunners :)

Here's another pair of 109s -- later-model 'bad guys'
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 24, 2012, 05:04:09 PM
Great Spanish stuff!

I particularly like that last pair of 109s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 25, 2012, 09:03:48 AM
Love that top Nationalist 109, apophenia! Gotta admit that scheme is very striking!

Brian da Basher

P.S. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 25, 2012, 12:13:34 PM
Thanks 'north: Here's some 109s from another AltHist scenario, this time an independant German East Africa established during WWII.

P.S. Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.


 ;D  But where's Chevy Chase with the day count!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 25, 2012, 07:15:17 PM
Love these last fighters: congrats
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 27, 2012, 03:04:28 AM
Great 109s!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on February 27, 2012, 03:10:12 AM
Outstanding........
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Maverick on February 27, 2012, 09:09:08 AM
Some really unique concepts there.

Regards,

John
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2012, 10:28:29 AM
Thanks guys. Here's the next in that series of Ost Afrika fighters:

BTW, those '109s borrowed heavily from Helmut Schmidt's wonderful 'flying ART' profiles. If you haven't heard of this guy yet, check out his blog now! Amazing stuff ...

Schmidt's posts are mostly historical '109s but a few other types too. And one or two whifs tucked in there as well (love his contra-rotating prop '109 racer!): http://flyingart.twoday.net/ (http://flyingart.twoday.net/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2012, 05:07:11 AM
A few more Ost Afrika fighters. These are Spanish imports.

The first HA.1112, 'Zebu', has an arid scheme for the Ost Afrikan push into Somalia.

The second HA.1112 wears Technische Offizier markings on the standard OstAfrika Luftwaffe savanna scheme. The 'leopard africa' motif is a personal mark. This beat-up fighter, based in occupied Northern Rhodesia, also features a replacement fin.

The third aircraft is a 2-seater with yellow training bands. At some point, 'Sieglinde' has swapped cowlings with another HA.1112 which had worn the arid-pattern camouflage.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JoseFern on February 28, 2012, 05:24:25 AM
Brilliant 109s! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 28, 2012, 06:21:45 AM
Very good!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2012, 11:26:40 AM
Cheers lads! Next batch are captured '109s. The first has been resprayed in early Kenyan markings. The second is a war trophy in the Cape still in its New South African Republic markings.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on February 28, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
How about an air-racing Buchon with a low-drag canopy and the Merlin replaced by a Griffon?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 28, 2012, 04:57:27 PM
Keep it up, it is great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 28, 2012, 07:52:14 PM
 :-*

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 29, 2012, 02:48:00 AM
definitely good work - the different markings/schemes are wonderful.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 29, 2012, 07:44:09 AM
Your African 109s have some wonderful color schemes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 29, 2012, 12:32:10 PM
Cheers guys! This batch are Kenyan and ex-Uganda '109s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 29, 2012, 12:39:04 PM
How about an air-racing Buchon with a low-drag canopy and the Merlin replaced by a Griffon?

Cool idea Evan. Here's my stab at it ... "¡Matalo, Hombre!"

First up is an Ejército del Aire aircraft reworked as a civil racer for recruiting purposes.  This Merlin engined racer is dubbed 'Manolo' to capitalize on the contemporary popularity of bullfighter Manuel Benitez Perez (aka El Cordobés).

The second aircraft is post EdA service display aircraft for Snecma division, Hispano-Suiza. This aircraft was based on a two-seater. The Merlin has been replaced by a Griffon 65 and a fuel tank replaces the forward cockpit to maintain balance.

And now I have to post and run ... my CPU's power supply sounds like an Ag-Cat preparing for take-off  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 29, 2012, 05:43:59 PM
Well,those racing aircraft looks really really cool !!! (http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/respect/respect-064.gif)

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 29, 2012, 07:16:20 PM
I love the Snecma Griffon with rear cokpit. So gorgeous :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 01, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
Thanks Tophe. This next installment of East African '109s requires a little more explanation ...

After WWII, Messerschmitt OA (in full, the Messerschmitt Ost Afrika Aktiengesellschaft) was set up primarily as an MRO facility and assembler of reclaimed or imported components. That changed when Messerschmitt OA began design of a Bf-109 replacement aircraft.

The Me-209 was unrelated to German designs with the same designation. Messerschmitt OA's 209 was intended to close the performance gap between OstAfrikan Luftwaffe fighters and the RAF Spitfire 24s and FAA Sea Furies being encountered.

The basic structure of the Bf-109 was retained for the Me-209 concept. Power was increased through the use of a French 2100 hp Arsaéro 12H-00 inverted V12 (a developed, Arsenal-built Jumo 213 -- an engine type then being imported as spares for the OAL's Ju-188 fleet).

In its original guise, the Me-209 distinguished itself from its progenitor by having an all-around vision canopy over a raised cockpit position. This allowed the Messerschmitt OA designers to increase fuselage fuel, maintain c/g, and improve pilot sight-lines.

After review by the TA-OAL (Technische Amt der OstAfrika Luftwaffe), the initial Me-209 proposal was rejected as being underpowered and having insufficient development potential. Messerschmitt OA answered with the revised Me-209TL with an exhaust-driven turbocharger. The latter was a TKL 15 (also obtained from the French) in an underbelly fairing.

Additional power came in the form of a 2250 hp Arsaéro 12H-02 engine driving a five-bladed propeller. The wingtips were to be extended to improve performance at altitude and a new tail surface (inspired by the OAL's Me-262) would help control the planned fighter. Once again, the TA-OAL rejected the Me-209 design. But Messerschmitt OA wasn't finished with their Me-209 concept just yet ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on March 01, 2012, 02:48:29 PM
Could try a Me-262 wing less engines on these last two.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 02, 2012, 06:41:17 AM
Your Me 209 is a fantastic concept, apophenia! Wish I'd thought of it!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 04, 2012, 07:27:47 PM
Great 209s!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on March 04, 2012, 08:46:07 PM
Great ones!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 05, 2012, 11:18:22 AM
Thanks guys! My old captions for the Ost Afrika series popped up on my hard drive. So, I think I'll turn that into a storyline. Meanwhile someone asked about US Sunderlands ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on March 05, 2012, 11:20:22 AM
Very cool.  Those look great.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 05, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
Thanks Logan. I forgot to acknowledge that I based them on an RAF profile by Andrey Yurgenson  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 05, 2012, 05:00:10 PM
Fantastic!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on March 05, 2012, 05:27:53 PM
The Sunderlands are great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on March 05, 2012, 06:24:59 PM
Very Cool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Maverick on March 05, 2012, 08:34:29 PM
Very nice indeed, I particularly like the different turrets.

Regards,

John
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 05, 2012, 10:23:31 PM
Sunderlands look great!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 07, 2012, 12:08:03 PM
Thanks lads. Now just a bit of silliness based on the Wellesley...

The first is the Type 294 Wellesley PR Mk III, immediately distinguished by its Rolls-Royce Merlin I engine. But the Type 294 was actually a twin-engined design. Where the observer's cockpit had been, sat a 'slave' Rolls-Royce Kestrel XVI driving a large Bentley blower to boost the Merlin's high-altitude performance.

A less successful Type 294 descendant was the Vickers Wellington (aka 'Twin Wellesley'), a twin-engined bomber. Intended as a fast bomber, the Wellington proved anything but. By the time the Wellington began reaching RAF squadrons in 1937, the type was already obsolete.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 07, 2012, 01:02:41 PM
Wonderful! :-*

A less successful Type 294 descendant was the Vickers Wellington (aka 'Twin Wellesley'), a twin-engined bomber.
Is the Twin in the name just for twin-engined or also for twin-fuselage? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on March 07, 2012, 07:12:32 PM
Thanks lads. Now just a bit of silliness based on the Wellesley...

The first is the Type 294 Wellesley PR Mk III, immediately distinguished by its Rolls-Royce Merlin I engine. But the Type 294 was actually a twin-engined design. Where the observer's cockpit had been, sat a 'slave' Rolls-Royce Kestrel XVI driving a large Bentley blower to boost the Merlin's high-altitude performance.

I stopped reading at "PR".  ;D  Great concept.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 08, 2012, 02:14:09 AM
The PR one is perfect!

Now, how about a RAF Coastal Command one?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 08, 2012, 05:24:32 AM
Thanks guys. Greg: A Coastal Command Welleseley could work -- more fuel in those bomb containers?

Is the Twin in the name just for twin-engined or also for twin-fuselage?

 ;D  Probably a better idea than my twin-engined 'Wellington' Tophe!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 08, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
Both ideas seem good, I will "work" for that (for fun), thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 08, 2012, 02:15:14 PM
already done (with the help of Blohm und Voss):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/r_twin_wellesley.jpg)
Thanks again!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 09, 2012, 11:55:29 AM
Sorry Apophenia, I must stay closer to your genius profile: port engine without cockpit then fuselage without engine: (Blohm und Voss helps anyway)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/R_twin_wellesley2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 10, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
Tophe: great variations as usual :) Part of what got me going on a twin-engines Wellesley is the original's tremendous span. But now I'm leaning towards a trimotor  ;D

Based on Glenn R's slendid scratch-built 1/32nd Wellesley on Britmodeller.com
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t60795.html (http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t60795.html)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on March 10, 2012, 08:49:16 AM
That trimotor's great.  Looks very 1930s.  Neat idea and it would be great if someone really did it in plastic.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 10, 2012, 10:34:19 AM
Wow, great three-engined version, will you pixelize it?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 10, 2012, 12:08:52 PM
Thanks Logan. I don't think it would be that hard (if you had the cowlings, props, etc.). Can't really see buying three kits for those fittings so probably one for the casting clone crowd  ;)

Wow, great three-engined version, will you pixelize it?

I'm not as thorough as you Tophe  :-[   I doubt  that I'd do a sideview of the trimotor, It'd look abit too much like the twin-engined 'Wellington' with the old Wellesley nose engine plonked back on  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 10, 2012, 01:28:15 PM
I'm not as thorough as you Tophe  :-[ 
My English is not fluent enough to be sure, but I think I disagree: YOUR profiles are thorough indeed, according to me, I mean: both perfect and inventive and pleasant and nice (well not "both" but "fourth"?) hehe... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 10, 2012, 04:53:01 PM
Where the observer's cockpit had been, sat a 'slave' Rolls-Royce Kestrel XVI driving a large Bentley blower to boost the Merlin's high-altitude performance.

So by 'a large Bentley Blower', do you mean an enlarged version of the Roots-type blowers supplied by Amherst Villiers for use on Bentley automobiles? Or something altogether different?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 11, 2012, 03:20:16 AM
Your twin-engined Wellesley is absolutely inspired, apophenia! Tophe, your various permutations of it are imaginative and delightful too!

Nice work, guys!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 11, 2012, 07:24:45 AM
Thanks guys. Here's an oldie that may appeal to Brian ...

JCF: Yep, 'Roots' would've been my pre-aphasia choice of names  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on March 11, 2012, 08:16:40 AM
That has a classic look to it, very believable!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 11, 2012, 11:22:14 AM
Why "believable"? Is it a fake picture? It seems so perfect, I am pretty sure this is true, not fake, am I wrong?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 12, 2012, 03:43:49 AM
Love the Wellesleys!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 12, 2012, 11:44:51 AM
Cheers EH.

Why "believable"? Is it a fake picture? It seems so perfect, I am pretty sure this is true, not fake, am I wrong?

A complete fake Tophe. But not to worry, the next one is absolutely real. No really, honest ...  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 12, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
Congratulations for your faking talents. But now, at the tribunal, what will be the meaning of "photographic proof"? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 12, 2012, 02:26:08 PM
JCF: Yep, 'Roots' would've been my pre-aphasia choice of names  :-[


Cool, so an installation like the classic front-mounted GMC 6-71 blower use in hot-rods and dragsters
before the top-mount arrangement became dominant:
(http://allshops.org/community/CommunityAlbum/9990119731829.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 13, 2012, 05:03:48 AM
Thanks guys. Here's an oldie that may appeal to Brian ...

JCF: Yep, 'Roots' would've been my pre-aphasia choice of names  :-[

My what lovely spats you have there!
 :-* :-*
Nice work, aphophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 13, 2012, 10:56:47 AM
Cheers Brian. Jon: That is exactly what I had in mind! Although I must admit I didn't know that hotrodders had ever used that arrangement. Very cool!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 13, 2012, 11:16:10 AM
JCF: Yep, 'Roots' would've been my pre-aphasia choice of names  :-[


Cool, so an installation like the classic front-mounted GMC 6-71 blower use in hot-rods and dragsters
before the top-mount arrangement became dominant:
([url]http://allshops.org/community/CommunityAlbum/9990119731829.jpg[/url])

Damn, that looks like the blower that Bond had on his Bentley in one of the early Bond novels (I mis-remember which as it's been ages since I read them).  I could see that as a booster/supplement engine for the propulsive engines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 14, 2012, 06:26:05 AM
My take on ysi_maniac's Advanced Britannia http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Daryl J. on March 14, 2012, 06:48:59 AM
The Advanced Brittania looks great
Kudos to both of you.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on March 14, 2012, 07:48:41 AM
Hi Apophenia,your profile is REALLY TEMPTING! 8) 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 14, 2012, 02:29:38 PM
Hmmmm....

That Britannia looks a treat!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 15, 2012, 05:01:01 AM
My take on ysi_maniac's Advanced Britannia [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15[/url])


Yowsa that's sleek and stunning! You & Mr Ysi would make a top-notch design bureau!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on March 15, 2012, 05:31:44 AM
My take on ysi_maniac's Advanced Britannia [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=957.15[/url])


Great profile
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 15, 2012, 10:22:16 AM
Yowsa that's sleek and stunning! You & Mr Ysi would make a top-notch design bureau!

Cheers Brian. The YsiApo OKB perhaps? "We can paint it any colour you like but spats are mandatory!"

The Dash 8/Q Series keeps popping up elsewhere on the forum so here's an oldie ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 15, 2012, 10:30:54 AM
oldie but goodie! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 15, 2012, 10:49:39 AM
Yowsa that's sleek and stunning! You & Mr Ysi would make a top-notch design bureau!

Cheers Brian. The YsiApo OKB perhaps? "We can paint it any colour you like but spats are mandatory!"

The Dash 8/Q Series keeps popping up elsewhere on the forum so here's an oldie ...
Very nice indeed.  That needs to share an airport concourse with a tilt-rotor Dash 8 and a Dash 8/Rotodyne cross.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 16, 2012, 07:19:20 PM
Wow that tilt-rotor Dash-8 is killer and I love the arctic Canadian markings! Nice touch!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 17, 2012, 05:44:19 AM
Hmmm, advanced Brittannia, eh?

... and seeing as I have a 1/144 CL-44 in the stash ...   :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 17, 2012, 08:25:41 AM
Thanks guys! I decided to go 'old school' on this one. What would a Bombardier tilt-wing look like if Kārlis Irbītis was still at the drawing board  ;)

Hmmm, advanced Brittannia, eh?
... and seeing as I have a 1/144 CL-44 in the stash ...   :icon_fsm:

Jon: Advanced Yukon?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 17, 2012, 11:10:08 AM

Hmmm, advanced Brittannia, eh?
... and seeing as I have a 1/144 CL-44 in the stash ...   :icon_fsm:


Jon: Advanced Yukon?  ;D


Nah, I'd keep it
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/Loftleidir_logo.png)

 ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2012, 10:51:50 AM
Nah, I'd keep it [Loftleiðir]

Ah, so you're a fan of extra long, tubular structures then?   ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2012, 10:55:10 AM
This was inspired by Greg's Wellington Ideas & Inspiration comment.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=991.msg12520#msg12520 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=991.msg12520#msg12520)

History buffs will get the name. RAF nerds will get the 'QR' code  ;)
_____________________________________________________

Taken into service as the Vickers Uxbridge general-recce bomber, the Type 431 began as an attempt to produce a higher-performing bomber from an airframe with maximum commonality with the Wellington and Warwick. As built, the Type 431 was essentially a 'cropped' Wellington.

The Uxbridge wings and horizontal tail were identical to those of the Wellington other than being of reduced span (70' vs 86' for the wings). The Uxbridge fuselage was also shortened (forward of Wellington frame 25). It was intended that Uxbridge medium bombers should have Fraser-Nash nose turrets but, in the end, all service Uxbridge GRs had fixed nose guns.

The Uxbridge illustrated is in a night intruder scheme. Most Uxbridge were in Coastal Command schemes and carried Leigh Lights for their U-Boat strafing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Daryl J. on March 19, 2012, 12:51:46 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 19, 2012, 04:27:01 PM
Me likely...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 19, 2012, 04:52:36 PM
Wow! that Uxbridge is nasty!

Just needs Coastal Command cammo.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on March 20, 2012, 11:51:30 PM
That Vickers is something special
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2012, 12:13:51 PM
Thanks guys! Upnorth: I may just have to do that Coastal Command version  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 21, 2012, 11:13:38 PM
^ Ooo ooo!!! Any chance of a 2-tone Mediterranean blue/white Coastal Command one? The Uxbridge looks great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Rafael on March 22, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
^ Ooo ooo!!! Any chance of a 2-tone Mediterranean blue/white Coastal Command one? The Uxbridge looks great!

Great idea!, Please, Apophenia!

Rafa
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 22, 2012, 10:01:32 AM
Over the Med: A Vickers Uxbridge Mk.IVA inbound with one feathered after an otherwise successful strike on Italian shipping.

^ Ooo ooo!!! Any chance of a 2-tone Mediterranean blue/white Coastal Command one? The Uxbridge looks great!

Sorry EH and Rafael ... I don't know the scheme. Is that the Beaufort camo?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 22, 2012, 06:21:03 PM
Very nice!

Quote
2-tone Mediterranean blue


http://www.jpsmodell.de/dc/schemes/raf_med42_e.htm (http://www.jpsmodell.de/dc/schemes/raf_med42_e.htm)

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t66426-200.html (http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t66426-200.html)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Rafael on March 22, 2012, 08:46:20 PM
As EH pointed out :-* :-*

Rafa
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 23, 2012, 10:08:26 AM
EH: Thanks for the refs. When I first heard of this scheme for Beauforts I was envisoning a 'solid' upper scheme of Dk Med Blue. But, if I understand correctly now, it was actually a 2-tone upper scheme of Dk and Lt Med Blue?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 23, 2012, 10:10:16 AM
This is a spin-off from my "Anything Goes" GB entry --  Avro Canada VTOL Fighters
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=910.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=910.0)

Avro Canada CF-117C Ares of 441 (Silver Fox) Sqn, 1 Wing, Baden-Soellingen. This aircraft carries a special, airshow scheme for the Ares' final year of Canadian Forces service. 441 flew the CF-117C in the tactical reconnaissance role (usually with the Vinten Vicon camera pod mounted). 441 Squadron flew the final CF-117 flight on 01 March 1986.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 23, 2012, 11:02:50 AM
nicely canuck...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 24, 2012, 02:35:26 AM
Me likey!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on March 24, 2012, 02:50:22 AM
Yowsa that's sleek and stunning! You & Mr Ysi would make a top-notch design bureau!

Cheers Brian. The YsiApo OKB perhaps? "We can paint it any colour you like but spats are mandatory!"

The Dash 8/Q Series keeps popping up elsewhere on the forum so here's an oldie ...

DROOL!!!!!!   :-* :-* :-* :-*

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 24, 2012, 03:06:22 AM
EH: Thanks for the refs. When I first heard of this scheme for Beauforts I was envisoning a 'solid' upper scheme of Dk Med Blue. But, if I understand correctly now, it was actually a 2-tone upper scheme of Dk and Lt Med Blue?

I think it is still very much a bone of contention as to what the colour scheme really was but I for one would love to see more of the 2-tone!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on March 24, 2012, 04:24:43 AM
Love the Checkerbird Ares! I just might have to grab the Testors F-104 and Lear... wouldn't be perfect, but the Testors F-104 is 1/3 the cost of a proper 'G'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2012, 06:55:03 AM
Thanks guys! Here's another oldie ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on March 26, 2012, 09:15:39 AM
Now that is an advanced trainer!
Would also make a grea tmodern Mosquito.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2012, 10:15:03 AM
Thanks! I had in mind a cheap, early '60s COIN aircraft -- wing pylons, tip tanks/rocket pods, etc. I don't know if the steel-tube frame of the T-6/Harvard fuselage is actually wide enough to accommodate an ejector seat but the Sabre 6 canopy plopped on there nicely  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 26, 2012, 10:20:13 AM
With this missing link you have found, the Harvards are Mustangs! Thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 26, 2012, 10:23:28 AM
So, is the engine a PT6 variant?  It's the only production engine I know of with the reverse flow to yield front exhausts.   That would be in keeping with what the airframe is stressed for rather than some over-powering engine.  You could probably locally modify the steel-tube fusealge to allow for fitting an ejection seat, so I'd not worry on that account.  Tip tanks (perhaps from Cavalier's Mustang conversions) with underwing rockets and rocket pods sound good, though I think I'd also want at least one gun pod under each wing for when I want to get a bit more "personal".
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 27, 2012, 11:46:44 AM
Yes, I had in mind the 680 shp PT6A-15AG. But I'm not sure when that model was introduced. For the early '60s, the lower-powered PT6A-6 or PT6A-11 might be more realistic.

For load, I was thinking wingtip pod/tanks as mentioned plus four underwing pylons. FN Herstal 7.62mm gun pods would be one option for the inboard pylons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 27, 2012, 11:55:53 AM
I like your load-out ideas, though I can see rockets under the outboard wings (much like Mustangs used in Korea) in addition to the other hardpoints.  It would be a challenge to do a similar aircraft powered by a T76/TPE331 of similar early-1960s vintage.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 28, 2012, 08:58:30 AM
Yeah, the Garrett is pretty much contemporary with the PT6A. A little trickier arranging the exhaust outlet but, otherwise, a fairly straightforward T-6 conversion I'd think.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 31, 2012, 10:01:16 AM
Attached is a summary image for my Anything Goes Group Build submission. The 'build thread' has potted histories for entire whif series of VTOL aircraft springing from the RW 1956 Avro Canada submission to the US Navy's TS-140 contest for a Mach 2 day fighter.

In this Avro Canada VTOL Fighter series, 21 aircraft are illustrated comprising 19 design variations. Check it out: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=910.msg9958#msg9958 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=910.msg9958#msg9958)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 31, 2012, 10:48:08 AM
Interesting, thanks for the link!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 01, 2012, 11:10:07 AM
Thanks Tophe.

This one was inspired by Greg's concept for an RAF Ki.48 'Lily'. The tricky bit is fitting the RAF's torpedo and still having room for a belly gunner over 4' high! Let's just say that the Kyoto Mk.III replaced the belly gunner with remotely-controlled guns  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 01, 2012, 12:06:03 PM
Oh yeah!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 01, 2012, 12:08:27 PM
Thanks! I had in mind a cheap, early '60s COIN aircraft -- wing pylons, tip tanks/rocket pods, etc. I don't know if the steel-tube frame of the T-6/Harvard fuselage is actually wide enough to accommodate an ejector seat but the Sabre 6 canopy plopped on there nicely  ;D


I really like that PT-6 powered AT-6.  Nice and the bubble canopy certainly makes it look much more modern. 

As for as the space issues for a standard ejection seat go, there is an alternative to consider with the Stanley Yankee Extraction System.  It takes takes up far less room in the cockpit and was designed for slower or lower performance aircraft. 

Link to Kevin Coyne's Ejection Site pages for:

Stanley Yankee Extraction System Seat (http://www.ejectionsite.com/yankee.htm)

Stanley Aviation Inc. (http://www.ejectionsite.com/stanley/)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 01, 2012, 12:28:26 PM
That is great, apophenia!  Of your recent profiles, I think this one's my favorite!  Very cool!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2012, 08:27:43 AM
Thanks for the links Jeffry. That Stanley seat looks ideal ... and the timeframe is perfect for what I had in mind :)

Logan: Glad you like her. I was intrigued by Greg's suggestion of Japan coming into the war on Britain's side as per WWI. An ETO Japanese AAF aircraft didn't offer sufficient marking variation to tempt. I am toying with doing an RAAF version though. If Japan was an Ally, it rather makes sense for Australia to source imported aircraft from slightly closer to home.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2012, 11:52:08 AM
Here's the RAAF 'Lily' that I threatened (I also took the opportunity to clean up some of the sloppier bits of the RAF version above).
------------------

The RAAF received Kawasaki Kyoto Mk.IIAs and Mk.IIIs from RAF stocks. Later Australia would order Kawasaki Type 99s directly from Japan. Since these aircraft would be medium bombers, they were given the name Kookaburra to distinguish them from the torpedo carriers.

Kookaburra marks followed the Kyoto sequence. The Mk.IV were essentially the Kyoto Mk.III with torpedo gear deleted. The Kookaburra Mk.V introduced more powerful (1,130 hp) Ha.115 engines and remotely-fired belly defence guns. Mk.VIs substituted US Bendix 250 CE turrets while Mk.VIs added nose guns. The Kookaburra Mk.VII replaced the fixed nose guns with 'package' guns on the side of the forward fuselage. Mk.VIIIs introduced surface search radar.

'Porky' is a Kookaburra Mk.VII based at Rabaul to safeguard Australia's Territory of New Guinea mandate. Armament is non-standard, mixing Mk.VI .303" nose guns with Mk.VII .50" package guns. Porky's mission symbols appear to be shown as milk bottles. Kookaburras of 15 Sqn saw comparitively little action but scored a notable success with the sinking of the German surface raider Komet off Bougainville.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 02, 2012, 12:08:52 PM
That looks great, and surprisingly un-Japanese.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on April 02, 2012, 01:28:44 PM
That looks great, and surprisingly un-Japanese.

Cheers,

Logan

Agree.   The Japanenseness seems all gone to me.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 02, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
I know.  That's what got me the first time I saw it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on April 02, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
Amazing what a difference a new paint scheme makes, very nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 03, 2012, 08:28:40 AM
Thanks for the links Jeffry. That Stanley seat looks ideal ... and the timeframe is perfect for what I had in mind :)


If you are working on this project in 1/48th scale you are in luck, Squadron Mail Order offers a resin 1/48th scale Stanley seat (http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=TD48424) in their True Details product line. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 03, 2012, 12:14:21 PM
Thanks folks. I've kept the 'Japaneseness' for this one. Following from Greg's suggestion that the Japanese may be operating aircraft alongside their British allies.
_________________

Kawasaki developed the Ki.45 To-Go attack variant of the Toryu when delays to the Ki.66 divebomber project became unacceptable. One squadron of the Japanese Combined Force's Ki.45 To-Go was 'lodged' with RAF Coastal Command's North Coates strike wing.

The To-Go illustrated has been repainted at an RAF maintenance depot (the pealing finish due to the nature of the Japanese aluminum alloy use to build the plane). The RAF-style squadron codes were a nod to neighbouring 236 Squadron, RAF. The serial would have been applied during the repaint for RAF record keeping.

JN 014 was lost in December 1942 during a strike on German shipping off the Dutch coast.

[BTW: this was based on a blank by 'AAP'. Dunno who he is but he's good.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 03, 2012, 12:15:17 PM
If you are working on this project in 1/48th scale you are in luck, Squadron Mail Order offers a resin 1/48th scale Stanley seat ([url]http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=TD48424[/url]) in their True Details product line.


Thanks Jeffry but this one's strictly pixels for me.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 03, 2012, 12:25:21 PM
I've kept the 'Japaneseness' for this one. Following from Greg's suggestion that the Japanese may be operating aircraft alongside their British allies.
Kept the roundel, but in a RAF camo, this is weird and funny... or crazy, gently crazy I mean ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 03, 2012, 04:33:07 PM
Love it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on April 03, 2012, 04:49:22 PM
That Ki-45 is great!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 04, 2012, 05:38:45 AM
Cheers guys! I'm imagining Ki.45 fighters as long-range escorts for the To-Go. Divebombing seemed a little passé for 1942 land-based aircraft so I deleted the wing divebrakes. (I'm guessing that the RW Ki.66 would've been completely restressed for divebombing anyway.)

The Ki.45 To-Go would've been employed more as a conventional attack aircraft for bomb (or possibly torpedo?) runs on light surface shipping. Over time, the To-Go would have been eclipsed by more flexible, straightforward Ki.45 fighter-bomber variants.

As for the air element of the Japanese Combined Force, that worked surprisingly well despite the mixed crews with differing cultures from the IJAAF and IJN. And of course, these WWII units were the progenitors of the unified Imperial Japanese Air Force that we know today  ;D

Kept the roundel, but in a RAF camo, this is weird and funny... or crazy, gently crazy I mean ;)

Yes, I went for an RAF look but retaining the Japanese hinomaru. Camouflage is as per contemporary Beaufighters. Other RAF touches were the yellow surround for the fuselage hinomaru and the fin flash. The latter I took from USAAF MTO aircraft (but added a rising sun banner above it for fun!).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 04, 2012, 05:53:43 AM
Can't wait to see what you do next.  Maybe a desert based one?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 04, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
How'dju know  :D
----------------------

New Zealand was the first Commonwealth country to order the Kawasaki Type 2 escort fighter. The RNZAF had a requirement for a long-range strike fighter and the Ki-45 seemed to fit the bill. Ordered for the RNZAF, the type was named the Kea as part of their practice of naming combat aircraft after indigenous birds.

The first overseas unit to receive the Kea was No. 487 (NZ) Squadron. A New Zealander-manned RAF squadron, 487 was formed at Norfolk alongside Combined Japanese Force squadrons. After training, 487 deploying to Malta in September 1942. Stationed at Luqa, the Keas acting in an anti-shipping role as well as strikes against land targets in Sicily.

NZ139 was a Kea Mk.IIB, the first of the 'long-beaked' Keas. This variant introduced the US 37mm Browning M4 in place of the lower-velocity Japanese Ho 203 autocannon. The defensive armament was also increased through the use of an armour-protected twin gun mount. While in Malta, 487 experimented with twin, belly-mounted 37mm guns but these proved too heavy for the airframe. Twin belly bomb racks remained the standard fit until wing-rack 60-lb rocket projectiles were introduced.

[BTW: the crucifixes under the cockpit are symbols for missions over Italy not victories!]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on April 04, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
Very convincing!
 
It does need a 'Malcolm Hood' though. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 04, 2012, 11:13:18 AM

It does need a 'Malcolm Hood' though.

Good idea! I did raise the hood for visibility but didn't go 'clear blown'. Ironically, the Japanese weren't noted for their plastic work back then. So, just like the Mustang's Malcom hoods, a UK retrofit then.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 04, 2012, 11:38:00 AM
Interesting thing about Japanese aircraft to keep in mind when considering the dull, pragmatic aspects of non-Japanese users is that they were made very specifically for the Japanese.  My father and I were discussing this recently in the context of one of our hypothetical "best of" scenarios.

Japanese aircraft were incredibly high performance for their day, the equivalent of most Western designs.  This is even more incredible when you look at the hp their engines produced and their all up gross weight.  How did they manage that?  Well, as they say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch".  Japanese design philosophy eschewed such "luxuries" as self-sealing fuel tanks, armor, and basically anything else that prevented the aircraft from becoming a ball of fire if anyone dared to light a cigarette nearby.  They had almost zero (no pun intended) ability to absorb enemy fire.

Does this mean that they're totally unsuitable for combat?  By no means.  But, if used by the British, Australians, or almost any Western military, they would be brought up to Western standards with such protection.  They still would have been comparable, but you have to factor in the speed, altitude, and range penalties that would most certainly be brought upon by these modifications.

I didn't mean to say these are totally implausible, just that they wouldn't be as "zippy" as the same planes in Japanese service.

Anyway, they look great, so by all means continue!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 04, 2012, 12:23:58 PM
I suspect we might see some engine upgrades somewhere along the way to restore performance.  You have to wonder how a Ki-100 would do with a R2800 fitted, as an example.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 04, 2012, 04:20:59 PM
Love the desert bird! 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 04, 2012, 06:30:36 PM
Thanks guys! Here's another oldie ...

If you had not identified the A/C as a Harvard, I'd be still scratching my head on what it was.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on April 05, 2012, 01:40:33 AM
Very good
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 05, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Thanks lads.

Logan: well said. In the RW, there's no advantage without trade-offs. We know what happened to the performance of P-36s and P-39s when they suddenly needed RAF levels of protection. Same would've happened to the Japanese airframes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 07, 2012, 01:07:36 PM
NZ107 was a Kawasaki Kea Mk.IC of 488 (New Zealand) Squadron flying from Malta. In March 1943, 'F' for Freddie was on an 'Intruder' operations over Sicily when fuel contamination started the engines spluttering. The crew pressed home their attack on Palermo airfield and then turned for home.

Once out to sea, the engines began running even rougher. The crew began jettisoning all non-essential equipment including personal weapons. Just after unshipping the navigators K gun, NZ107 was intercepted off Trapani by CR.42s of 4° Stormo CT. With no way to fight, the crew were escorted into Borizzo Airfield to surrender.

Freddie was repainted in Regia Aeronautica markings for flight tests. The heavily touched-up paintwork was typical of Keas operated in night schemes where covering chips and peeling was vital. Italian wing roundels and tail cross were applied along with a black recognition stripe.

NZ107's tail wheel was locked down suggestion a hydraulic problem. That may explain why the aircraft was written off in a wheels-up landing by a visiting Luftwaffe TO in late April 1943. She was then staked-out as a decoy. The ruse was apparently successful since NZ107 was destroyed by strafing P-38s during the invasion of Sicily.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 07, 2012, 03:10:50 PM
Winner!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 07, 2012, 06:08:41 PM
Those are some great variations on the theme.!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 08, 2012, 12:48:35 PM
Thanks guys! The linky below is for my April Fool's GB entry:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1037.msg14631#msg14631 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1037.msg14631#msg14631)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on April 08, 2012, 10:25:44 PM
Love the Q500! Experts might know that Field hasn't proposed a Q500, but they would also probably wonder why it hasn't. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2012, 11:23:44 AM
Thanks Silver Fox. It makes sense to me. Q300 with Q400 engines means low TBO but enough emergency power to climb like a scorched monkey  ;D

Elsewhere, Upnorth was pondering on a South American Stuka. Here's my go -- the FMA I.Ae. 19 Boleadora (here in service as a naval coastal strike aircraft).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 09, 2012, 11:35:17 AM
Love it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on April 09, 2012, 12:06:34 PM
Wow! The Stuka heritage is visible, but that looks positively sleek.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 09, 2012, 02:35:20 PM
That Stuka is tremendous!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on April 09, 2012, 07:30:16 PM
Waw,nice!  :-*

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 09, 2012, 11:55:28 PM
Logan: Glad you like her. I was intrigued by Greg's suggestion of Japan coming into the war on Britain's side as per WWI. An ETO Japanese AAF aircraft didn't offer sufficient marking variation to tempt. I am toying with doing an RAAF version though. If Japan was an Ally, it rather makes sense for Australia to source imported aircraft from slightly closer to home.


Listen to this podcast at 48 minutes (right-click and 'save as'). (http://bobrowen.com/nymas/podcasts/Ed%20Miller%20-%20Bankrupting%20Japan.mp3)  I found it at NYMAS's site (http://bobrowen.com/nymas/podcasts.html).  The whole thing is worth listening to, but 48 min makes for some good whiffery.  It's talking about what Japan's options were in response to the US's economic (specifically oil) embargoes of the late 1930s and early 1940s.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on April 11, 2012, 02:38:13 AM
Oooo! That night intruder Ki-45 is gorgeous!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2012, 11:14:35 AM
Thanks EH. Here's another stab at Upnorth's South American Stuka.

Logan: sounds intriguing. Any idea if there's a text version of this anywhere?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 11, 2012, 11:24:24 AM
Very neat.  As for the podcast, no, sadly.  I downloaded almost all of the podcasts and have been listening to them over the past couple weeks.  Very good and very informative!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
Whoa!!!  That seriously needs building!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on April 11, 2012, 04:44:14 PM
 :-* Well,the last one is quite interesting,me likey!

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 11, 2012, 05:04:58 PM
Right! Stuka and Corsair on the shopping list!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on April 12, 2012, 07:53:52 AM
Wicked! Seriously, seriously wicked! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/ukliam2.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 12, 2012, 10:17:00 AM
Thanks guys. It got me wondering about other stuff from that era that would benefit from a Dart...

[BTW: the raised canopy combines parts from the HA 200 Saetta.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 12, 2012, 03:15:51 PM
Now that is just something else! :-*

Now, can you imagine Dart powered Corsairs in the Football War? >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 12, 2012, 05:13:29 PM
Go on...do a Dart powered Ta-152!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 12, 2012, 05:39:16 PM
Go on...do a Dart powered Ta-152!!!

Or a double dart post war Spanish development of the Do-335...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Talos on April 12, 2012, 10:08:29 PM

Or a double dart post war Spanish development of the Do-335...

I believe that requires a double-dart dare.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 15, 2012, 02:58:49 AM
Not a Dart engined one, but did someone say Turboprop Do-335?

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/335c3.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 15, 2012, 11:32:16 AM
Wonderful Do-335, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on April 15, 2012, 03:00:40 PM
Perfect Do-335 engine upgrade.   :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 15, 2012, 03:08:38 PM
Now that just looks nasty! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 16, 2012, 09:10:30 AM
Love the Turbo-Pfeil Greg! Here's some more Spaniards with Darts ...
__________________________

A pair of Hispano Aviación HA-1112-T1L (aka HA-1113) Turbo-Buchóns of the Fuerza Aérea Canaria. Known locally as the Magido ('Sword'), the HA-1113 were ex-Ejército del Aire aircraft supplied when the Canaries gained independance from Spain in 1972.

The first Magido retains EdA camouflage over which the Spanish had applied FAC markings. These consisted of rudder stripes, six roundels (based on the Movimiento Nacionalista Canario flag) and, originally, 'NACIÓN CANARIA' stencil on wingtip tanks.

Magido 09/E was with Ala 1, Núm 3 Escuadrón de Caza-Ataque at BAM Gando (Las Palmas, Gran Canaria). She wears an unofficial Ala 1 crest on her nose (the white 'casa' being a pun on local pronuciation of 'caza') and a personal marking (the name 'Yaiza' on the tail).

The second Magido, 11/A, belongs to Guanil 3, 3 Haña (CA) based at Goro Tyteroygatra. This is actually part of the same squadron as Magido 09/E (above) but the nomenclature has been changed to local indigenous terms (as have base locations and island names). Gua 3, 3 Haña translates loosely as 3rd Det., 3rd Herd. Goro Tyteroygatra translates as Lanzarote Base (formerly BAM Pto. del Carmen).

Magido 11/A has fresh paintwork applied courtesy of a visiting US Navy carrier. The roundels are of the modern type and vertical striping has been moved to the tail fin. 'FUERZA AÉREA CANARIA' has been stencilled below the cockpit (standard for Madigo with or, as in this cse, without tip tanks).

Magido 11/A carries no personal marks by order. Gua 3, 3 Haña aircraft had previously worn a stylized Guayota (devil) on their noses along with the flight slogan Vacaguaré! ('I'd rather die!'). Note that this aircraft carries no wing guns. Spain had delivered the HA-1113s with 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT guns (ex-CR.32 Chirri). These old Italian machineguns would later be replaced by US Navy Colt M3 cannons similar to the Turbo-Buchón's original 20mm cannons.

The Magido served from late 1972 until 1983 in mixed units with the piston-engined Tabona ('Knife', armed versions of the North American SNJ). The SNJ-6 Palo used to train Magido pilots was augmented in 1978 by the arrival from Spain of a pair of HA-1112-T4L two-seat trainers. Beginning in 1982, remaining Magido were phased out of service in favour of the jet-powered Hispano Aviación Sunta ('Mace', aka HA-200 Saetta).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 16, 2012, 09:41:19 AM
Not a Dart engined one, but did someone say Turboprop Do-335?

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/335c3.jpg[/url])


I see you fixed the canopy Greg. Looks much better than the RW unit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 16, 2012, 10:43:01 AM
Inspired by another of Upnorth's ideas http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1215.msg15288#msg15288 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1215.msg15288#msg15288)

A Nakajima Nauk Mk.IA torpedo bomber of the Fleet Air Arm. This particular Nauk, flown by Lt-Cdr MW Williamson of 815 Naval Air Squadron led the first wave of attack on Taranto, 11 Nov 1940. 'Nauk' is a dialect name for the Great Northern Diver but FAA Nakajima crews invariably referred to their mounts as 'Nutcrackers'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 16, 2012, 11:05:47 AM
That looks so natural.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 16, 2012, 11:19:19 AM
So typically British, almost...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 16, 2012, 11:22:04 AM
That looks great, apophenia.  The Kate always looks fantastic.  Best carrier-borne torpedo bomber in the world until the Avenger.  Heaven knows the FAA needed one!  One question, though, how can the prop be casting a shadow when it isn't there?

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on April 16, 2012, 10:32:24 PM
Really enjoying these Japanese aircraft in British markings. Keep 'em coming!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 17, 2012, 03:45:30 AM
I don't know how you guys feel, but I think an FAA Rufe would go down well right about now.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on April 17, 2012, 04:18:39 AM
Now... why do I think that Herr Kondor is not going to appreciate an FAA Rufe?  ;D
 
Not as much as I would appreciate one anyway!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 17, 2012, 01:42:57 PM
I don't know how you guys feel, but I think an FAA Rufe would go down well right about now.

Mitsubishi fighters entered British service with two models -- the Merganser floatplane and the Murrelet carrier fighter. Mergansers and early Murrelets were both powered by Bristol Taurus radials. After 1943, the Japanese felt able to export Sakae radials (beginning with the Murrelet Mk.IV).

First is Mitsubishi Merganser Mk.IA of 702 Sqn. aboard HMS Asturias in 1941. At that time, HMS Asturias was on convoy escort duties in the North Atlantic where the ship's Mergansers did useful work chasing off shadowing Kondors.

Second is a Mitsubishi Murrelet Mk.II flown by Sub-Lt Peter Hutton from 801 NAS off HMS Victorious during Operation Pedestal. On 12 Aug 42 Sub-Lt Hutton downed an Re.2001, the following morning he shot down a recce Ju-88 and shared a score on another.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 17, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
The Merganser success cured the failure of the float-Spitfire, I have heard of that. Thanks to provide the very first picture ever! (this was top top secret till yesterday)...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on April 17, 2012, 05:11:11 PM
Well those British Zero's looks quite natural!
Lovely  :-*

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 17, 2012, 06:57:30 PM
Weren't they built under licence in a Scotish factory?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 17, 2012, 07:03:17 PM
Yeah, those look lovely.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 17, 2012, 08:33:45 PM
Wow! Love the Merganser.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 17, 2012, 09:11:13 PM
Weren't they built under licence in a Scotish factory?

They were built in Canada by Canadian Car and Foundry (CCF) along side the Hurricanes .  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 21, 2012, 09:52:37 AM
They were built in Canada by Canadian Car and Foundry (CCF) along side the Hurricanes .  ;D

Not in my Alti-verse ... CanCar built Airacobras!  ;D

Logan: Bamboo stealth blades -- they just couldn't figure out how to get around the shadows!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 21, 2012, 09:55:07 AM
The Kawasaki Kestrel was unique in serving with the RAF but not operationally with the Japanese. The IJAAF tested a prototype but quickly rejected the fighter when its Hiro Type 00 inverted V12 engine failed repeatedly. Kawasaki then redesigned the Type 3 for its own Ha-38 engine, a licenced Hispano-Suiza 12Y. A small batch of Ha-38 powered aircraft were trialled by the IJAAF as their Army Type 3 Fighter but no orders followed.

Kawasaki offered their fighter to Britain but the RAF requested an alternative engine, the US Allison V-1710. This was taken into service as the Kawasaki Kestrel Mk.I fighter and was primarily issued to Army-Cooperation squadrons. The Kestrel became famous with No.112 (F) Squadron in the Western Desert but soon faded in both fighter and Army-Cooperation roles as Hurricanes and Spitfires became more available.

Experiments in the camera-equipped fighter-recce role were successful enough to warrant a switch in production. The Mk.II was the last fighter version before the Kestrel PR Mk.III tactical reconnaissance variant began deliveries. While successful at low-altitude recce in the MTO, the RAF needed higher-altitude aircraft to operate over North-Western Europe. This led to the Merlin-engined Kestrel PR Mk.X series.

The Kestrel PR Mk.X was powered by a Merlin 45 which improved altitude performance. The Mk.XI introduced a pressure cabin and Merlin 47. A bigger boost came with the PR Mk.XII with its 2-speed Merlin 64. Unlike the Allison-engined PR Kestrels, most Mk.X series aircraft were unarmed. Some Kestrels with oblique cameras were given a wing-gun armament of four 0.5" Brownings. These tactical recce aircraft were given 'A' suffixes as PR Mk.XA and PR Mk.XIIA.

The Kestrel PR Mk.XII and pressurized PR Mk.XIII were the most capable of PR Kestrels whose performance was not eclipsed until the introduction of the high-altitude PR Spitfires.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 21, 2012, 10:01:11 AM
Winner!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 21, 2012, 11:05:06 AM
Thanks for your Ki-61 derivatives, still enriching the family (together with the Ki-60, Ki-100, Ki-61-II)... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on April 23, 2012, 04:43:55 AM
The Kestrel PR.XII is gorgeous!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 24, 2012, 04:58:25 AM
Thanks lads. Now, for Greg, an ex-US 'Warthog' turned over to the Afghans ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 24, 2012, 05:30:45 AM
Winner!!!

Thanks.  I was imagining the other day what such a beast would look like if the USAF gave the Afghans some Warthogs for CAS/COIN missions.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 25, 2012, 04:36:31 AM
That Afghan A-10 is brilliant, apophenia!

Your British "imports" a page back are fantastic too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 25, 2012, 04:43:31 AM
Given the failed attempt to gain Sierra Nevada/Embraer EMB-314/A-29 Super Tucanos under the USAF's Light Air Support (LAS) programme (still think it was the best choice), one could quite easily imagine an option being put forward to transfer something like a dozen A-10Cs to the Afghans rather then to bring them home...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 25, 2012, 11:03:36 AM
Thanks Brian ... but all credit for the Afghan A-10s goes to Greg  ;)

Greg: Not sure what the glitch was with LAS -- should've been a no-brainer  :P

I've modified the first image into a A-10C (and decided she should have arabic serials from the outset). Here are two more ...

The Fairchild Republic A-10Aa is a refurbished Thunderbolt II airframe (taken from AMARG, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ) for the Afghan Air Force to make up attrition of ex-USAF A-10Cs. Known as 'Breshna' (Lightning) to the AAF, ANA troops dubbed them 'Toptshi' ('Gunner') or 'Khar' ('Donkey', because they do the heavy hauling. The Aero L-39 is the 'Khargóttey' or 'Little Ass').

The upper aircraft, 143, is a Gardez-based 'Breshna' supporting the ANA's 203rd Corps out of the appropriately-named Camp Thunder. This aircraft wears the locally-applied 'Khost-Gardez' camouflage scheme, lo-viz roundels, and both Roman and Arabic serials.

The lower A-10Aa sports the 'Kandahar' scheme of a KAF-based aircraft flying in support of the 205th Corps ANA. 'Breshna' 156 carries FAB-500 'dumb' bombs outboard with KAB-500L guided bombs inboard (with their associated KAB-Kr UPK acquisition pod).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 25, 2012, 11:44:55 AM
It seems the major language of Afghanistan is Pashto rather than Arabic, would you write a Pashto version? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 25, 2012, 12:45:00 PM
Soooo...tempted get another A-10 kit....but where to get Afghan decals?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Scooterman on April 25, 2012, 09:26:53 PM
Soooo...tempted get another A-10 kit....but where to get Afghan decals?

Simples!  I make you a set!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on April 25, 2012, 11:59:12 PM
Very cool! Great minds ;) 
(http://www.doomisland2.com/images/profiles/afghan_A-10.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 26, 2012, 03:16:49 AM
Looks like I missed a many graet aircraft the HA-1113 is superb
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 26, 2012, 03:48:25 AM
Aarrgghhh...their ganging up on me! :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 26, 2012, 08:33:51 AM
Thanks arc' ... I was amazed at how easily the HA-200 canopy bits slid into place on the '109 fuselage.

Doom!: Very nice! Especially like the camouflage's balance and the flag on the tail (I never thought of that).

I considered putting the roundels in the USAF positions but all AAF aircraft seem to put them on the vertical tail. The Warthog's slime lights rules that out and I ended up with them on the nacelles instead.

Tophe: 'Arabic' is something of a misnomer. But that script is used in both Pashto and Dari ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 27, 2012, 04:25:20 AM
I like how the markings kind of "blend in" with the camo on those A-10s, apophenia. That effect makes them look like they've seen action to my eye. Great work!

And Doom, your A-10 is a show-stopper too! I like the flag on the tail!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 27, 2012, 06:14:11 AM
Thanks Brian. I wanted them to look fairly newly re-painted but 'lived in'. I suspect that Kandahar 'rock flour' would make an excellent paint stripper  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 29, 2012, 11:25:30 AM
Musings elsewhere about C-27s and Hercules got me thinking about the Lockheed L-400 again. To my mind, keeping the standard Herc fuselage made the L-400 proposal too big (especially to compete with the Spartan in the military market.

So, here's an updated L-400 with shorter fuselage and (for the civvie market, at least) twin PW150As.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 29, 2012, 12:56:37 PM
Cute...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2012, 08:34:38 AM
Griffon-powered Mustangs came up elsewhere. So, here is the P-51G ...

The North American XP-51G were converted XP-51Fs with British Merlin 145Ms driving 5-bladed propellers. In November 1944, the second XP-51G was re-engined with a Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 with Rotol 5-blade prop.

The USAAF decided that Packard Merlin-engined P-51Hs would be built at Inglewood, while the P-51G would be built at Dallas. 'Shimmy VI' is a P-51G-2NT flown by Col CL Sluder, commander of the 325th Fighter Group in Germany in June 1945.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on May 02, 2012, 03:03:47 AM
That's very nice.

Very few things can't be improved with a contra-prop.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 05, 2012, 07:38:21 AM
A HAL-IAI Alkira of 30 Squadron, RAAF. Formerly a base support unit, 30 Sqn was stood up to full fighter squadron status with the arrival of the Alkira. Moving from East Sale to RAAF Base Darwin, 30 Sqn operate in the light strike fighter role as well as Lead-In Fighter Training (augmenting the RAAF's Hawk 127 LIF).

The HAL-IAI LCA was chosen, in part, for its engine commonality with the RAAF's F-18F Super Hornet. An Aboriginal word, Alkira ('bright') reflects the original users' name 'brilliance' (Tejas for the Indian Air Force, Havraká for the Israeli Defence Force).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 05, 2012, 08:51:43 AM
Although I personally don't care for the Tejas, you do do nice artworks. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 07, 2012, 11:02:46 AM
The Breda Ba.165 Asso ... an updated Ba.65 with a mid-mounted 880 hp Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI.RC RC2C.15 liquid-cooled V12 driving an extension shaft. The hollow nose-reduction gear allowed for a third 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT machinegun on the centreline.

[ Based on a Ba.65 A80 of 159a Squadriglia by JJ Boucher ]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 07, 2012, 11:34:21 AM
That is gorgeous, apophenia.  When's the model coming out to go with the box art?  :D

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 07, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
Oh you could get people like that!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 07, 2012, 03:17:32 PM
That is gorgeous, apophenia.  When's the model coming out to go with the box art?  :D

Cheers,

Logan

Keep that in mind for next year's April Fool's GB...some fake box art jobs could really get some people!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on May 07, 2012, 04:49:20 PM
The Ba165 Asso is tasty indeed
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 07, 2012, 05:23:17 PM
 :icon_bofh:The more I look at that last one, the more it looks like a RR Griffon engine from a Shak or Lincoln!  Now that would be impressive!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on May 08, 2012, 05:11:15 AM
WOW!
 
That is just begging for a sharkmouth. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 08, 2012, 10:16:34 AM
Thanks guys. I've got a sideview in the works ... but got distracted by AGRA's RAAF Twin Mustangs  ;)
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17429#msg17429 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17429#msg17429)

:icon_bofh:The more I look at that last one, the more it looks like a RR Griffon engine from a Shak or Lincoln!  Now that would be impressive!


Indeed. The Achilles Heel of all pre-WWII Italian aircraft was available engine power. The Griffon would've been a treat but those humongous IF W18s were the most powerful they had. I figured a V12 was more practical option even if it did put out less oomph.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 08, 2012, 08:36:08 PM
Love the Twin 'stang!

Always liked the look of the Asso, with the annular radiator on the Cant Z.501 in particular. Good excuse to have some annular radiator Macchi/Fiat/Reggiane late-war fighters to match those Fw-190D-9s wouldn't you say?!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2012, 07:23:34 AM
Thanks EH. Here's another Twin Mustang ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17523#msg17523 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17523#msg17523)

I like the look of the Asso XI on the Gabbiano too. It is fun to imagine Regia Aeronautica fighters with truly successful IF V12s  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2012, 11:53:10 AM
I-FORT was converted to Ba.65ter standard with the installation of a 880 hp Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI V12 engine. The private-venture Ba.65ter was tested by the Regia Aeronautica but the Ministero dell'Aeronautica concluded that the 1000 hp Fiat A.80 RC.41 18-cylinder radial engined version would offer superior performance.

Without an RA order, the Ba.65ter became a development airframe for Breda's Ba.165 program, eventually being re-engined with a more powerful 960 hp I-F Asso XI RC.40.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 09, 2012, 12:04:17 PM
It definitely has a different look this way.  Not bad, though.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2012, 12:12:11 PM
Yep, portly curves and odd facets. Nobody would ever call the Ba.65 a beauty  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 09, 2012, 12:18:22 PM
For whatever reason, I-FORT there just screams "Luigi" at me...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
There were two 'Marittima' derivatives of the Breda Ba.65 for the Regia Marina. The first was the Ba.65 Catapultabile intended for launch from the 'catapulte Gagnotto' aboard RN Giuseppe Miraglia. Tests were successful but a policy decision dictated floatplanes and escort fighters only for this tender.

The second maritime Breda was the Ba.65 ISP shipboard divebomber. This type introduced the more powerful Piaggio P.XI RC.40 radial engine. Some airframe strengthening was also required to meet the ISP's intended role as shipboard divebomber (bombardiere da picchiata). No divebrakes were fitted the Ba.65 ISP was to lower its landing gear and use the undercarriage fairings to slow its dive.

Work had been ordered on the aircraft carrier RN Sparviero (the liner Augustus rebuilt) in late 1938. Sparviero was to be a least-mod conversion replacing 1932 plans for a keel-up carrier and filling in until the more extensively modified liner Roma could be delivered as the carrier Aquila.

Despite its limitations are a divebomber, all 'Serie 0' Ba.65 ISPs were embarked for the maiden voyage of the RN Sparviero. However, as is well know, Sparviero was sunk by torpedos from a British submarine, HMS Proteus, in the Gulf of Taranto on the night of 21/22 March 1942. All Ba.65 ISPs and Re.2000 CIs aboard were lost when the Sparviero went down.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2012, 11:24:58 AM
What do these ones scream Litvyak?  ;D

Oh, BTW, I've mounted another CAC Twin Mustang (this time, a torpedo carrier) in AGRA's 'Opportunity Cost' story thread: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17612#msg17612 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1329.msg17612#msg17612)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 11, 2012, 03:00:56 AM
Me thinks I just got an excuse to buy a kit!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 11, 2012, 03:12:04 AM
What do these ones scream Litvyak?  ;D

Stiamo arrivando per voi, vaffanculi britanni!  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 11, 2012, 08:21:28 PM
Lovely Bredas! The ISP looks much better without that anachronistic canopy framing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2012, 09:49:12 AM
Thanks! EH: yes, worst ever canopy ... the open-cockpit Ba.64 looks svelte by comparison! As you could probably tell, I pinched the new canopy (along with the new cowling and prop) from a passing Re.2000  ;)

Stiamo arrivando per voi, vaffanculi britanni!  ;D

 ;D  All part of Royal Navy tradition ... along with rum and the lash.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2012, 09:56:59 AM
The Breda Ba.265 was an attempt to evolve the Ba.65 series into a twin-engined attack aircraft. Marketed as La Volpe, Breda saw the Ba.265 as a smaller companion to the new Ba.88 Lince. Unfortunately, the Ministerio del Aire preferred the Savoia-Marchetti SM.85 for the Regia Aeronautica.

The SM.85 used fewer strategic materials in its construction and its Piaggio radials were more reliable than La Volpe's twin Isotta Fraschini Delta R.C.35 I-DS (the SM.85 was also stressed to act as a divebomber). Breda sought permission to export the Ba.265 but this was denied until defects had been eliminated from the trouble-prone Ba.88 series.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 12, 2012, 10:56:13 AM
That's VERY neat looking.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on May 12, 2012, 11:51:53 AM
yes, nice - obviously Caproni had a hand in it too !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 12, 2012, 10:06:06 PM
Nice!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 13, 2012, 03:11:59 AM
Griffon-powered Mustangs came up elsewhere. So, here is the P-51G ...
The North American XP-51G were converted XP-51Fs with British Merlin 145Ms driving 5-bladed propellers. In November 1944, the second XP-51G
Belated thanks for this one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2012, 06:33:56 AM
yes, nice - obviously Caproni had a hand in it too !

Yep, the nose glazing was inspired by the Ca.311 and the cowling pinched directly from the Ca.313 prototype  ;)  And here's another Caproni-inspired Breda development ...

The Ba.64 Idro was intended as a replacement for the IMAM Ro.43 maritime reconnaissance biplane. The Ba.64I prototype was tested at the Regia Aeronautica's Centro Sperimentale at Guidonia but was found wanting.

Guidonia staff concluded that the Ba.64I's floats were disporportionately large while their cantilever mounting struts were too short (resulting in the propeller tips hitting the tops of waves in choppy water). Breda recommended a redesign of the float gear and substitution of the metal-skinned Ba.65 airframe. This proposal was rejected by the Ministerio del Aire.

The prototype Ba.65I was transferred from the Centro Sperimentale to the 3a Squadriglia of the Scuola Osservazione Marittima at Orbetello before being passed on to the RA's Scuola Idrovolanti at Portorose. The sole Ba.65I ended its days as an instructional airframe.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Daryl J. on May 13, 2012, 06:36:23 AM
That's first rate!   :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2012, 06:45:40 AM
Cheers Daryl. I like the off-beat look of a lot of Breda designs but, to make a whif plausible, the outcome has to be a bit of a dog  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2012, 09:01:28 AM
In 1938, the Ministerio del Aire rejected Breda's proposal for a Ba.65 floatplane derivative and denied export permission. Nonetheless, design work on a Ba.65 floatplane continued in secret at the Milan factory. The result was the Ba.65 Idro concept which incorporated the tail surfaces of the Breda's twin-engined Ba.88 Lince.

In theory, the Ba.65 Idro was to replace the unsatisfactory Ba.64I prototype. In reality, the Ba.65 Idro represented part of Breda's export ambitions for the Ba.65 and Ba.88 series. The Ba.65 Idro was to be offered with the same range of engines as other Ba.65s but an advanced version would feature the 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI RC.40 radial from the Ba.88.

Rather than submit the Ba.65 Idro to the Regia Aeronautica, Breda hope to gain permission from the Ministerio del Aire to enter the design in a Danish 2-seat floatplane competiton. The Ba.65 Idro (Dan) would be offered with 900 hp Isotta-Fraschini K 14s and open rear gun position or 1,000 hp Piaggio P.XI with an enclosed Breda M turret for rear defence.

In the end, the Ministerio del Aire again denied export permission and insisted upon Breda focusing on correcting defects in the Ba.88 design for the Regia Aeronautica. As a result, Breda plans for float versions of the Ba.65 and Ba.88 never got past the drawing board.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 18, 2012, 12:59:02 AM
Griffon-powered Mustangs came up elsewhere. So, here is the P-51G ...
The North American XP-51G were converted XP-51Fs with British Merlin 145Ms driving 5-bladed propellers. In November 1944, the second XP-51G
Belated thanks for this one.
At last, I made what I dreamed of from your one, thanks!
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P-51TR6_azzzzw.JPG)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 19, 2012, 10:11:00 AM
Thanks Tophe. Love your P-51GB -- I guess the P-51BG would have to radial-engined and have the cockpit moved back to the base of the fin  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 19, 2012, 01:05:20 PM
Thanks Tophe. Love your P-51GB -- I guess the P-51BG would have to radial-engined and have the cockpit moved back to the base of the fin  ;D
Thanks Apophenia, I love your idea.
(http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P-51TR6_bzzzza.JPG)
GBR stands for both (best for) Great BRitain and Griffon P-51B turned Radial...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 20, 2012, 05:50:35 AM
He he, love it Tophe! And the belly fairing is now for the turbocharger  :)
Title: Red Australia
Post by: apophenia on June 04, 2012, 06:16:11 AM
Somebody was working on a Red Australia, prompting me to post a pair of oldies.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 04, 2012, 06:46:09 AM
Me likey !!!

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 04, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Oldies? I did not remember these ones, thanks for posting! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 05, 2012, 06:34:43 AM
I remember the Ca-15s. Still an outstanding idea!
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2012, 09:56:56 AM
Thanks guys. Tophe, those were done for a scenario written up by rickshaw (on that 'other' discussion group). He then asked me to do profiles for "Remember Eureka!", a storyline where the Australian states are independent for the first half of the 20th Century.

Here's the first of the Remember Eureka! sequence. I'm going to start with Western Australia and move West to East. [Note that, because WA and New South Wales shared no border, they were both able to use RAF-style roundels.]
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2012, 09:58:59 AM
Some proposals to Western Australia that didn't fly (literally in a few cases)...
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2012, 10:00:37 AM
Some operational Fairey types of the Royal Western Australian Air Force ...
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2012, 10:02:18 AM
The last of the Western Australia ones includes a post-WWII Tassie Mustang.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 05, 2012, 12:00:19 PM
Thanks for this new batch. My very favourite is the Fairey Falcon :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2012, 04:44:23 AM
Thanks Tophe. My Falcon was, of course, based on Fairey's twin-Merlin P.27/32 proposal but with a more Battle-ish canopy. I forgot to mention that rickshaw's storyline is available here: http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=183013 (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=183013)

Here's some Central Australian Republic (South Australia) aircraft starting with Heinkel 51 fighters and local He-70 derivatives - the He-170Fau and He-270Au.
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2012, 04:49:47 AM
Next up are Central Australian Republic Heinkel 100 fighters and proposed He-100 replacements. For the latter, top is the Heinkel Adelaide HA-101, a Merlin-powered He-100 development. Below is the 'Brumby' which was to be licenced P-51D with an improved, Holden-built DB601 engine.
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2012, 04:53:25 AM
Heinkel Adelaide's successful He-100 replacement candidate was a twin-jet adaptation, the HA-110. The 'Glendambo Gallah' was a late-model HA-110 with the one-piece improved sliding canopy.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 06, 2012, 06:27:44 AM
Bought a He 51 on a whim (because it was cheap  >:D) some day and didn't know what to do with it. Now I know! (http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/ChernayaAkula/Emoticons/70.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 06, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
I love Brumby and He-110
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 06, 2012, 04:38:21 PM
Totally awesome !!!
I like ''EMU camo'' on HE-100 white 19 (http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/respect/respect-048.gif)

Alex
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2012, 07:04:28 AM
Thanks lads. Mustn't forget the CAR bombers. Here's the locally-built Fokker G-1D and Dornier Do-217Eau. Both types were powered by BMW 801 radials.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2012, 07:08:37 AM
Out of sequence but the LFG D.VI shows the first version of the CARAF roundel. As mentioned before, both Western Australia and the Dominion of Australia (NSW & QLD) used RAF-style roundels.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2012, 07:19:19 AM
And now for some Republic of Victoria Air Force types. Lasco or the Larkin Aircraft Supply Company of Fisherman's Bend, Melbourne, built or designed a number of aircraft for the RVAF.

The Lasco Lascoter was a real, 1929 6-seat transport but, of course, never flew in RVAF markings ;) The whif Lasco Lapwing was 1938 intermediate trainer (for RVAF monoplane familiarization) based on the Lark II biplane.

As planned, the Lapwing was intended as a P-26 lead-in trainer powered by a 6-cyl engine. This was never built. Nor was the biplane Lark III, another attempt at increasing power.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2012, 07:30:19 AM
When the Republic of Victoria Air Force called for a Boeing Peashooter replacement fighter, Lasco submitted the LP-MP Lares based on the Fokker D.XXI. Insisting on a retractable undercarriage, the RVAF rejected the Lares. Lasco devised a retractable gear for the Lares but it was too late, the RVAF had selected the Curtiss 75A.

Lasco further developed the Lares for submission to China. The LP-MPC featured a retractable gear and a monocoque wooden rear fuselage. This too was rejected, China preferring a familiar rival -- the Curtiss 75 (ironically with a fixed undercarriage).

The comparion Lares II project was a light fighter. The LP-LWF was proposed in two variants: a fixed-gear fighter-trainer and retractable-gear light fighter. The RVAF had a requirement not neither type and the Lares II was rejected by the Republic of China as well.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2012, 07:36:20 AM
On the slim chance that whif unbuilt projects interests anyone, here's a list of Lasco projects:

Lasco Liner - 12-passenger transport, enlarged development of Lascondor.

Lasco Lapwing (original) - as planned for P-26 lead-in training with 200hp Menasco 6-cyl.

Lasco Lark III - planned Lark II replacement combining Lapwing fuselage with Lark wings.

Lasco Learner - parasol-monoplane crew-trainer for RVAF Douglas B-31 bomber.

Lasco Lascar - maritime reconnaissance-bomber floatplane (updated Fokker T.IVa).

Lasco Laputan - transport floatplane for Melbourne-Tasmania route (revised Lascar)

Lasco Lares (original) - fighter monoplane for RVAF contest (based on Fokker D.XXI).

Lasco Lares (revised) - updated fighter monoplane for RVAF (or export market).

Lasco Llama - twin-engined light transport (similar to Koolhoven FK.50A).

Lasco LittleHawk - 2-seat trainer for Curtiss 75A fighter (based on Fokker D.XXI).

Lasco Lares II - Menasco Privateer-powered lightweight fighter/trainer (fixed gear).

Lasco Lares II (revised) - updated fighter/trainer for the export market (retract. u/c).

Lasco Lambda - twin Privateer-powered A-17 replacement (sim. to French Hanriot H-220).

Lasco Lasso - Allison V-1710-powered fighter (enlarged version of the final Lares II).

Lasco Lariat - Hispano-Suiza HS.12Y-powered export version of the Lasso fighter project.
_____________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 07, 2012, 11:40:42 AM
Wow!
My favourite of this batch is the Lares II! :-*
Title: Republic of Tasmania
Post by: apophenia on June 08, 2012, 06:32:54 AM
Thanks Tophe. I have a weak spot for lightweight aircraft too.

The Republic of Tasmania Air Corps got many of its aircraft as surplus from its Victorian neighbour. An example is this ex-RVAF Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 of VF-4 at Wynyard in 1942. This aircraft had badly-faded RVAF Red-Earth and Gum-Green camouflage with 'Tasman Triangles' applied.

The extensive white 'Allied' recognition paint was to avoid red RTAC roundels being mistaken for Japanese hinomaru. Following RVAF practice, a single vertical stripe denotes 'A' Flight leader but the RTAC applied this stripe to the rudder rather than to the rear fuselage.

An exception to Victorian origins is the ex-USN Northrop BT of VB-9 (A Flight), Wynyard, 1942. This aircraft has simply had recognition marks and RTAC 'Triangles' applied over USN camouflage. The second aircraft (also of A Flight) is out of Launceston in 1943. This BT has been re-sprayed in a then contemporary three-tone Dauntless scheme by US Navy personnel when their carrier visited Hobart for minor refitting. Red 'Tasman Triangles' have been replaced by US-inspired insignia (a blue RTAC triangle on a US-style circle-and-bar background).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2012, 10:55:44 AM
Back to the Republic of Victoria which sourced most of its military aircraft from the US. Here's a pair of wartime fighter aircraft...

The Curtiss Hawk 87 replaced the Hawk 75As. The 'Geelong Goer' is in the original RAF-style camouflage as supplied by Curtiss. 'Shark Bait' has been oversprayed with 'Foliage Green'.

The Hawk 87s, in turn, were replaced by North American Mustangs. The NA106 shows the standard scheme with white recognition paint over natural metal. 'The Moorabool Mongrel' has the recognition stripes applied for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

The Mustang continued in Victorian service after WWII by which time the RVAF had adopted USAAF/USAF designations. The F-51D wears the standard post-war RVAF scheme for fighters. The F-51K wears commemorative markings based on that 'Golden Wings' scheme.

A more dramatic commemorative scheme were the markings adopted by RVAF Reserve Squadrons for the centenary of the Eureka Stockade uprising. Although a standardized scheme, each Mustang carried a distinct quote or slogan.
Title: Remember Eureka!
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2012, 10:58:30 AM

The Dominion of Australia consisted of New South Wales and Queensland. The first fighter designed to an RAAF specification was Hawker's Mercury Fury. These biplanes began being replaced by Hurricanes in early 1939.

While awaiting delivery of Beauforts, the RAAF adapted some of its Blenheims as torpedo bombers. The Blenheim Mk.IIT had its turret removed to save weight and reduce drag. 'Scare guns' were installed in each nacelle tail (upper scrap view) and gunner provided with a periscope. The lower scrap view shows the single Blenheim Mk.IIT modified as a trials aircraft for the Commonwealth CA4's remote-controlled turret development.

The Blenheim was replaced in both bomber and torpedo roles by locally-built Beauforts which were joined by Mosquitos. The appearance of DHA Mosquitos changed little throughout the war. As the FB.40 shows expanding patches of recognition white. This was later formalized (as on the B.42) before invasion stripes were added for Operation Coronet.

The standard late-WWII fighter for most Australian air forces was the Mustang. The Mustang shown was the personal mount of Clive Caldwell during Operation Coronet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 09, 2012, 09:00:24 PM
The alternate Australia profiles are really great!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on June 10, 2012, 06:48:33 AM
I was really waiting for those Eureka Mustangs again .... not that I haven't got them on my hard-drive anyhow ----- simply one of the best four P-51 schemes that I MUST build :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 10, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
Thanks guys. The Eureka centennial Mustangs were my favs too raafif  ;)

Here's the last batch -- post-union CAAF and CAN aircraft. And just for you raafif, the 150 year scheme  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 10, 2012, 07:55:20 PM
^ Nice! I think my favs have to be the Fairey Gordon and S.9/30 (although the Tasman BTs are up there too!).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2012, 07:17:38 AM
Thanks EH, you're a man after my own heart -- anyone who can see the beauty in the Gordon is a friend of mine!  ;D

I was playing with the Breda Ba.88 Lince is see if anything could be salvaged. Here's the Ba.88N single-seat night raider.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 13, 2012, 09:24:15 AM
Nice job on the Ba 88N!  I love the quirky 30s and 40s stuff!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2012, 09:35:12 AM
Thanks Acree. I'm keen on that quirky '30/'40s stuff too  ;)

This next one was prompted by looking at a 'parts shot' of the MPM kit. That got me wondering what you would end up with if the Ba.88's fuselage was used upsidedown. As it turns out, still rather dumpy  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on June 13, 2012, 10:17:15 AM
The Italians are weird.

They make absolutely gorgeous cars and the people generally aren't hard to look at, but their trains and airplanes are, with a few exceptions, pretty awful looking. :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on June 13, 2012, 10:22:12 AM
The Italians are weird.

They make absolutely gorgeous cars and the people generally aren't hard to look at, but their trains and airplanes are, with a few exceptions, pretty awful looking. :P

Add ships to the gorgeous side.  They had some of the most elegant capital ships of the early 20th century hands down!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 13, 2012, 12:07:15 PM
Wow! :-*
(this upside-down one is going well with the Re-2005 and G-55 and Mc-202 Italian beauties according to me)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on June 13, 2012, 12:12:06 PM
My own thinking is that Italian airframes with German engines produced some elegant aircraft: MC-202/205/206/207, G.50V (well, an elegant adaptation), G.55, G.56, and Re2001, 2005, and 2006.  For that matter, the proposed G.54 is a most attractive aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 13, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
Some of their radial engined offerings had style too. The IMAM Ro.43 & 44, Cant Z.1018 and the Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 come to mind. I'd also echo that the Macchi/Fiat/Reggiane fighters are certainly lookers. We won't mention the Stipa!  ;)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who occasionally inverts the fuselage to see what it would look like!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 13, 2012, 11:24:40 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who occasionally inverts the fuselage to see what it would look like!  :)
Don't forget our Brian da Basher that built a "Latecoère" from an inverted Heinkel 219... He nicely gave it to me, and I am proud of it.
Apophenia is making this great tradition live again...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 14, 2012, 02:23:28 AM
I have a plan to do a Ba88 with either BMW801s or DB605s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2012, 08:33:50 AM
... and the people generally aren't hard to look at ...

That's because all the homely Italians have been detailed to queue-jump at the Poste restante  ;)

I have a plan to do a Ba88 with either BMW801s or DB605s

DB605 seems the most realistic (from an availability pov). I wonder, do any of the Do-217 kits come with both radial and inline cowlings? I know that's a DB603 but that firewall gives you a starting point for going from radial to inline.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 14, 2012, 06:36:27 PM
Lovely!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 14, 2012, 06:57:27 PM
The increased length with the DB engine makes the 88 far less tubby looking!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 18, 2012, 11:51:26 AM
Thanks guys! Inspired by upnorth's Stealing the Stuka
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1501.msg19988#msg19988 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1501.msg19988#msg19988)

Proyecto NAAA (Nuevo Avión Agrícola de Argentina) evolved the Ju-87 design into a large agricultural aircraft. Intended to be built by the civilian side of FMA, Industrias Aeronáuticas y Mecánicas del Estado, neither variation on the P.1 Tucumán was of interest to authorities.

Somewhat more ambitious was the feederliner Proyecto NALA (Nuevo Avión Ligero Argentino). At an early stage both liquid-cooled and air-cooled engines were proposed. The Hispano-powered P.2 Chubut was thought most promising by the former Junkers designers but the P.2A Chaco had the advantage of engine commonality with FMA's AeMB.2.

Lacking encouragement, Proyecto NALA evolved into a lighter 2-seat design with refined wing structure but that is another story ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on June 18, 2012, 01:08:46 PM
Tremendous stuff!

It might be just me, but the P.2A Chaco has a bit of a Northrop Alpha look to it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 18, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
Very cool!  I love taking the familiar (and not-so-familiar) and making variations and extrapolations from them.  Great job.  I especially like the P.2A.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 20, 2012, 07:31:41 AM
Thanks guys. Northrop's Alpha was definitely an influence (I was trying to avoid anything that looked like the Junkers Ju-60 and Ju-160.

Now, riding on Acree's coat tails ...  ;)
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1494.msg20357#msg20357 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1494.msg20357#msg20357)

Visitors to Farallon are able to view a fully-restored Capstan Wedell 44P Wasp fighter at the Farallonian Museum of Technology. The Wasp is resplendant in the markings of the Farallonian Air Force's 3rd Fighter Squadron circa 1942.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 20, 2012, 07:53:32 AM
WOW!!! I am both humbled and honored.  AWESOME job Apophenia!  You took a drawing which I thought was "pretty good" and turned it into something truly AMAZING.  Thanks!

Chuck
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on June 20, 2012, 08:10:03 AM
Apophenia never ceases to amaze! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2012, 11:19:20 AM
Ah shucks ... thanks folks  :))

For those who have ever wondered at the Capstan Wasp's bumpy cowling, a glance at the first demonstrator prototype is revealing. With its larger-diameter, smoother cowling, visibility from the cockpit of the first Wedell-Williams Model 44P demonstrator was negligible. A scanty view between rocker-covers on the service Wasp fighter was better than no view at all!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 21, 2012, 01:14:37 PM
AND, check out that snazzy FAF uniform worn by Lance Margon (who looks amazingly like Col. Roscoe Turner in this photo  :D).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 22, 2012, 06:11:39 AM
AND, check out that snazzy FAF uniform worn by Lance Margon (who looks amazingly like Col. Roscoe Turner in this photo  :D).

But Lance Margon didn't have a mustache and Roscoe Turner did have a mustache! (said in best 'Superman doesn't wear glasses' voice)  :))
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 22, 2012, 06:13:37 AM
Back to Litvyak's AltBC concept ...

As part of the post-WWI 'Imperial Gift', British Columbia received a batch of Parnall-built Hamble Baby biplanes (in the N2000-N2039 range). In theory, the BC Air Force (RBCAF after 1922) operated the Hamble Baby on floats as a coastal defence fighter. In reality, both float version and Hamble Baby Converts on wheels only acted as fighter trainers.

With the establishment of British Columbia naval aviation in 1921, the RBCN's Fleet Air Arm required a proper float fighter. As the RBCAF also required a modern fighter to replace its WWI 'left-overs', government decided to pursue a single type to satisfy both service's requirements.

After testing both the Fairey Flycatcher and third prototype Parnall Plover, a licence was purchased for a locally-built Plover. Boeing BC would undertake production but this was delayed while BC's rival services bickered over their engine choices. In the end, the Navy selected the heavier Bristol Jupiter while the RBCAF preferred the more compact Armstrong-Siddeley Jaguar.

A note on markings:

G-BYAF shows typical mid-'20s RBCAF markings. Along with the pale BC roundel of the period, RBCAF aircraft had rudder stripes and civilian style registration codes on the rear fuselage and lower wing. Plovers were aluminium-doped with black anti-glare panels, struts, and landing gear.

G-BYNP is a Jupiter-engined RBCN Fleet Air Arm Plover. Naval Plovers lacked rudder stripes (although stripes were applied to aircraft with spinners). Note that individual airframe details were recorded beneath the fin 'RBCN' but FAA aircraft lacked RBCAF-style specification blocks on the fuselage.

The Plover Mk.IN (for 'Naval') could operate on wheels or floats. For recording purposes, (F) indicated aircraft mounted on the Hoffar wooden float gear.

BTW: these sideviews are based on art by Zygmunt Szeremeta of Choroszy Modelbud. http://www.modelbud.pl/en_US/p/A167-Parnall-Plover-silver-series/492 (http://www.modelbud.pl/en_US/p/A167-Parnall-Plover-silver-series/492)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on June 22, 2012, 07:59:18 AM
Superb! The float-equipped one looks particularly fetching.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 22, 2012, 11:45:01 AM
Thought you might like those  ;)

Now back to the design saga of  upnorth's Stealing the Stuka ...

While civilian aircraft designs based on the Ju-87 failed to gain favour with the IAME, attention returned to military derivatives, producing designs for the Fábrica Militar de Aviones.

The first was a straightforward torpedo-bomber type for the Comando de Aviación Naval, the FMA P.9 Tehuelche. This aircraft was to be powered by a 760 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ybr and had interchangable wheel or Edo float undercarriage. The FMA P.9 was rejected by Armada planner for lacking the third crew member deemed necessary for a torpedo bomber.

Sensing another stone-walling, the former Junkers designs sought out the co-operation of younger, more open-minded COAN officers and pilots. Designed with input and critique from service officers, the conceptual replacement for the conventional FMA P.9 Tehuelche was radical in the extreme.

The FMA P.12 Yamana had its 860 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ycr buried amidships with a propeller shaft running to the nose. To either side of the tube enclosing that shaft, sat the pilot and navigator. The new cockpit was lower than that of the Ju-87, allowing a semi-enclosed bomb-bay.

Behind its mid-mounted engine, the FMA P.12 Yamana would mount a SAMM power-operated turret with a defensive machinegun. The FMA P.12 Yamana was to have a retractable undercarriage but floats could be fitted as required. For the torpedo role, fore and aft fairings were removed to semi-enclose the weapon in flight.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on June 22, 2012, 11:57:16 AM
A torpedo armed Stuka on floats???!!!  :o :o :o


Keep it up man!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 22, 2012, 12:20:23 PM
 :-* I love your P.12!
With its fin looking like a Mustang, could you invent a similar P-51? (someday)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 24, 2012, 06:12:39 AM
Nice idea Tophe!  I started work on a Mustang similar to the P.12 but somehow it kept crying out Navion to me. So, here's a civilian mid-engined Mustang derivative that turns into a jet-for-four.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 24, 2012, 06:15:44 AM
Wow!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on June 24, 2012, 06:45:07 AM
At first glance in the thumbnail, I thought the Jet Navion was a Fouga Magister of some sort.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 24, 2012, 07:25:08 AM
I've always had a thing for the Navion - wanted to own one for many years.  Love the Mustang-Navion.  I also like how you got shades of Buckeye in the Jet Navion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on June 24, 2012, 08:14:08 AM
Wow! The floatplane Stuka is increadible!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 24, 2012, 08:54:09 AM
Wonderful! Your Navion and Jet-Navion are delicious! :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on June 24, 2012, 09:08:10 AM
Saw a couple Navion at last weekend air show.  Also was a non-flyable T-37.
This is nice.  See them both in your drawings.   :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 25, 2012, 06:20:09 AM
Thanks folks. The RW Navion is waaay more practical than my variations ... but maybe slightly less fun  ;)

Litvyak: Close! I pinched the jet exhausts from an obliging MS.760 Paris.
Title: Stealing the Stuka
Post by: apophenia on June 25, 2012, 06:22:44 AM
More unbuilt designs from upnorth's Stealing the Stuka ...

Proyecto NATB-3/5 (Nuevo Avión Torpedero y Bombardero - Tipos 3 y 5)

When its mid-engined FMA P.12 Yamana design was rejected by the Comando de Aviación Naval as being too radical, the ex-Junkers team returned to their P.9 Tehuelche concept. Power was increased by using the 860 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Ycr but now mounted more conventionally in the nose.

Other than increased power, the P.9C (or 'NATB Tipo 3') was essentially similar to the P.9A (Tipo 1) Tehuelche. However, late in the design process, it was decided to improve control and stability by returning to the twin rudder arrangement of the original Junkers Ju 87 v1 prototype.

While COAN planners had come to terms with a twin-seat torpedo-bomber, there were now concerns as to whether P.9C defensive armament would be adequate. The ex-Junkers team returned to the drawing board once more and produced the P.9E (NATB Tipo 5).*

The FMA P.9E/Tipo 5 had its empennage rearranged to provide space for a remotely-controlled gun barbette in the tail. This barbette was to have 190° rotation and +85° elevation and -5° depression. Removing armament from the rear cockpit also provided more space for a navigation table.

The FMA P.9E/Tipo 5 was to be powered by a 920 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-29. Airframe cleanliness was improved through the use of cantilevered float struts. The engine coolant radiators were also incorporated into these struts resulting in a cleaner cowling and more clearance for ordnance.

[* The P.9D/Tipo 4 was a proposed wheeled version of the P.9C/Tipo 3.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 25, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
Nice idea Tophe!  I started work on a Mustang similar to the P.12 but somehow it kept crying out Navion to me. So, here's a civilian mid-engined Mustang derivative that turns into a jet-for-four.
Well, I tried also, getting a result somehow. Thanks again! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on June 25, 2012, 11:27:18 PM
Those Navions are fantastic!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 26, 2012, 02:26:20 AM
I see a distinct Latécoère 298 look happening here.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 26, 2012, 10:52:12 AM
Thanks guys and very nice Tophe --  I love the Yamastang name  :D

I see a distinct Latécoère 298 look happening here.

Well spotted Greg! I was going for a prototype Laté 298 look on the later 'torpederos' ;)
Title: Nuevo Avión Bombardero en Picada
Post by: apophenia on June 26, 2012, 11:09:26 AM
Proyecto NABP (Nuevo Avión Bombardero en Picada)

The ex-Junkers team based its first naval dive-bomber design on the FMA P.12 Yamana torpedo-bomber concept. The P.14 Kaweskar (NABP Tipo 1) was another mid-engined design but somewhat smaller in overall dimensions.

The P.14's crew was reduced to two with the navigator operating defensive armament via a periscopic sight. Defensive armament initially consisted of the P.12's tail barbette relocated admidships. In later studies, the dorsal barbette was augmented with a ventral barbette although control details for the latter were not finalized.

As with the FMA P.12 Yamana, planning staff of the Comando de Aviación Naval rejected the P.14 Kaweskar as being too radical. Anticipating an outcome of this sort, the ex-Junkers team had prepared a back-up NABP design which stayed close to the original Stuka formula.

The FMA P.17 Mapuche (NABP Tipo 2) had conventional engine and cockpit locations and retained the Stuka's distinctive fixed, spatted landing gear. This undercarriage would be jettisonable should ditching at sea become necessary.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 26, 2012, 12:04:42 PM
Nice family... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2012, 10:31:36 AM
Thanks Tophe!
--------

At the end of WWII, Curtiss found itself with military orders cancelled and no viable commercial product to sell. The CW-20 Commando had been one of the most advanced airliners when it flew in 1940 but, by war's end, there was little or no airline interest in the type.

Needing a commercial product quickly and desiring to utilize as many of the CW-20 tools as possible, Curtiss-Wright resurrected its 4-engined CW-24 concept, fitting it with the nose gear of another unbuilt CW-20 derivative, the CW-28. But this alone would not be enough to rival the dominant Douglas DC-4.

The Curtiss-Wright engine division was at work 'Americanizing' the jet engines of Britain's Armstrong Siddeley. This brought them in to contact with the latest Armstrong Siddeley development, the Mamba AS.1 turboprop. Adapted for this radical new powerplant, the Curtiss-Wright CW-34 Turbo Commando was unveiled in late 1948.

Unfortunately for Curtiss-Wright (and Armstrong Siddeley), the Mamba AS.1 had difficulty producing the power it was designed for. The CW-34 never got past the prototype stage, and Curtiss-Wright's licenced TP 48 Mamba turboprop was never built at all.
-------
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on June 27, 2012, 02:46:14 PM
Turbo Commando four engine.  Cool concept   8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 27, 2012, 04:35:46 PM
Interesting...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 08, 2012, 06:09:57 AM
Another springing from Litvyak's AltBC concept ...

After WWI, the British firm of Pemberton-Billing had reinvented itself as Supermarine. Wartime AD flying boats were bought back for rebuilding and refurbishment for peacetime roles. One such AD reincarnation was the Strait, Supermarine's first foray into British Columbia.

The Supermarine Strait was an AD airframe shipped in 1919 to the Hoffar shipyard in Vancouver for assembly and installation of a Liberty L-12 engine. Otherwise unchanged from the AD, the completed Strait was submitted to the RBCAF as a light patrol flying boat.

Unfortunately for Supermarine, British Columbia had no requirement for such a flying boat (being content with float-based patrol aircraft). The sole Strait was retained by the RBCAF for flying boat training at Jericho Beach but, lacking dual-controls, it was of limited use.

The Strait also participated in harbour-to-harbour air mail trials btween Victoria and Vancouver. While landing in Vancouver's Coal Harbour, fog obscured a piling until it was too late. In an unavoidable collision, the Strait's starboard mainplane was completely destroyed.

The damaged Strait was towed to the nearby Hoffar shipyard where its engine was recovered. Shorn of its ruined wings, the hulk of the Strait sat near the ways until Hoffar decided to use the hull to test its new, Fokker-style wing design. The latter was a plywood-covered wooden monoplane, necessitating a new engine-mounting structure as well.

Hoffar named its 'new' flying boat the Hornby (H-5, in the old Hoffar designation style). To subsidise development trials, Hoffar offered the Hornby as a dedicated air mail carrier to the BC government. Accepted, the Hornby flew the Victoria-Vancouver route until striking a deadhead in Victoria's Inner Harbour. The Hornby was recovered but the wing had been damaged by immersion and the hull was beyond repair.

[BTW, images based on various Zygmunt Szeremeta AD/Channel sideviews]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 08, 2012, 06:17:08 AM
Ohhhhhhh wow, do I ever adore those!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on July 08, 2012, 06:23:07 AM
Very nice
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 08, 2012, 10:58:53 AM
Yes, nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 10, 2012, 11:40:17 AM
From Litvyak's AltBC concept ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=19.msg21783#msg21783 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=19.msg21783#msg21783)

Before the Shukopoots was the Skookum Scimitar Project. But, of course, Supermarine BC's 'Dark Corner' was working on Scimitar derivatives long before the official go-ahead was received.

One such project was a 1963 twin J79-powered Scimitar derivative. This single-seat carrier fighter was aimed at the Royal Canadian Navy which had just retired its Banshee fighters.

Another early Skookum Scimitar project was an all-weather interceptor. Powered by Spey 202s, the interceptor was to use the Autonetics Nasarr monopulse radar set (from the F-104G) wingtip rails for Sidewinder IR missiles, and longer-range AIM-7 Sparrow missiles underwing. When the RBCAF chose to go with Blue Dolphin AAMs, this project was shelved.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 10, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
 :-*

Gorgeous!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on July 10, 2012, 11:55:13 AM
They look so natural!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on July 10, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
Sweet Scimitars!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2012, 10:31:00 AM
Thanks folks!  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on July 23, 2012, 11:44:32 PM
'North: as promised, here's some more Namao-based heavies.

The Keewatin filled a gap between tactical and strategic transport for the RCAF. Another windy backstory but, long story/shorter: CC-152A is a Kawasaki C-1 outfitted for the RCAF by Canadair. The CC-152B was a trials conversion to BE.53 Pegasus (Bristol Aero Engines Canada). The production STOL variant was the CC-152C.

Very nice!!!

M.A.D
Title: Re: Canadair-Douglas CC-233
Post by: M.A.D on July 23, 2012, 11:45:26 PM
Next installment for the alternative AltCan: the Canadair-Douglas CC-233 Labrador.

With Douglas ending C-133B project, the time was right for a joint venture. A shortened C-133 fuselage was mated to CL-44 wings, tail, and Tyne turboprops. The RCAF used the CC-233 Labrador to shuttle NATO fighters to Europe.

Unfortunately for Douglas, the USAF didn't bite. Hopes had been pinned on riding on USAF CL-44 orders. When that [RW] MATS order fell through, so too did any chance of a USAF 'C-233'.

Any chance of one of these in an RAAF scheme???

M.A.D
Title: Re: Canadair-Douglas CC-233
Post by: apophenia on July 25, 2012, 11:43:11 AM
Any chance of one of these in an RAAF scheme???

Now why didn't I think of that?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 25, 2012, 12:05:38 PM
Here's another from Litvyak's AltBC series...

Having overseen BC production of the Parnall Plover, designer Harold Bolas moved to Vancouver in early 1930. His first BC commission was from Hoffar Aircraft Engines.

HAE had a buy-back arrangement with the Royal British Columbia Air Force and had exported some refurbished HIV-12A Harrier air-cooled V-12s to Kwangsi to re-engine worn DH-4s and DH-9s. Now the Kwangsi Air Force was looking for a Harrier-powered fighter trainer.

The result was the Hoffar Bolas Fighter HBF-1 aka Bolas Bolo Mk.I  biplane. Twenty were built for the Kwangsi AF, entering service in 1931. By 1935, the Bolos were wearing out and Kwangsi returned them to Hoffar for modernizing and rebuilding.

The HBF-1A (Bolas Bolo Mk.IA ) was similar but replaced the Harrier V-12 with a 450 hp HLR-9A Alcyone 9-cyl radial. Kwangsi arranged for shipment from Vancouver to Hong Kong but the aircraft never arrived. Some time later, the mystery ship showed up in Barcelona harbour - the fighter-trainers had been diverted to the Spanish Republicans!

After assuring the BC government that Hoffar had nothing to do with breaking the boycott on arms shipments to Spain, the HBF-2 (aka Bolas Boxer) light fighter was developed for export. This aircraft was to have a 750 hp 18-cyl HLR-18A Procyon radial but as that engine was late, a P&W Wasp was installed instead.

With no interest in the HBF-2 shown in China, a sales tour of Central America was planned. On the advice of Hoffar de  México SA, the Bolas name was dropped and the light fighter redubbed the Hoffar Halcòn for the Latin American market.

The HBF-2 demonstrator was sold to the Nicaraguan Guardia Nacional and further development of the dated Hoffar Bolas Fighter series was abandoned.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 25, 2012, 12:30:47 PM
Spectacular! :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 25, 2012, 01:03:34 PM
I understand the CC-233 was a real 'dog' in RAAF service...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2012, 05:49:09 AM
I understand the CC-233 was a real 'dog' in RAAF service...

Woof!  ;D

Bolas-Crouch Monoplane Fighter and Bolide


With the Bolo/Boxer design played out, Harold Bolas began sketching out a more advanced monoplane fighter for the RBCAF. Then came the surprise announcement came that the Supermarine Skemcis would be bought.

Rather than pursue his monoplane fighter concept, Bolas revised the design as a two-seat attack aircraft. Structurally, the aircraft remained the same as did the powerplant options.

The Bolas attack aircraft, dubbed Bolide, was submitted to the RBCN but was rejected due to wooden construction and monoplane configuration. In 1938, Bolas tried the RBCAF again but that service had also fallen into the thrall of all-metal construction.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2012, 05:50:41 AM
Bolas-Crouch Baccalaureate

With war in Europe imminent, the Royal British Columbia Air Force had a change of heart on metal construction for non-operational types. Early in 1939, the RBCAF planning office approached Bolas to see about turning his wooden attack aircraft design into an advanced trainer for the RBCAF. 

A trainer design with a 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp was quickly drawn up. This met the RBCAF's approval but the service insisted upon a change to a single tail surface. This single-finned design would enter RBCAF service as the Bolas-Crouch Baccalaureate trainer.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2012, 05:52:25 AM
Bolas-Crouch Bufflehead and 'Saltchuck Baccy'

The Bolas-Crouch Baccalaureate formed the basis for two different float trainers for the RBCAF. The first was the single-float Bufflehead with purpose-designed Hoffar float and wingtip pontoons. The Bufflehead was meant as a familiarization trainer for the Sea Skemcis SF fighter. The result was unsuccessful in the extreme, the Bufflehead being prone to porpoising on take-off and skip or nose-in on landings.

The second Baccalaureate conversion was more successful. The twin-float
Baccalaureate TF employed imported Edo floats. This 'Saltchuck Baccy' was used as a lead-in trainer for the Sea Skemcis SB torpedo bombers. The wooden structure was not ideal for exposure to salt air and the 'Saltchuck Baccy' was phased out of service in 1946.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2012, 05:54:21 AM
Bolas-Crouch Brambling

Ryan Aeronautical Company of San Diego and Bolas-Crouch struck a deal whereby all-metal specialist Ryan got production rights to the wooden Baccalaureate trainer while Bolas-Crouch could participate in Ryan's bid to build a wooden derivative of their ST series for the US Army.

In the end, the USAAF decided not to proceed with the Ryan trainer beyond a handful of YPT-25 trials aircraft. Bolas-Crouch, on the other hand, produced fairly large numbers of BC-150 Brambling trainers for the RBCAF and for export to Canada for RCAF use.

Initially, it was planned to use the Hoffar-Bolas Bombus 6M V-6 engine in the Brambling but that proved an unhappy combination. The Brambling prototype was re-engined with a de Havilland Gipsy Six which would also power two Brambling production marks. Other Brambling marks used imported Menasco B-6 Buccaneer or Fairchild Ranger 6-440 engines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 26, 2012, 05:57:07 AM
<3 <3 <3 !!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on July 26, 2012, 06:09:04 AM
Great stuff! That grey/green over yellow scheme on the Baccalaureate is quite tasty!  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on July 27, 2012, 02:55:55 AM
Very good
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 27, 2012, 07:11:47 AM
Thanks folks! Somebody on Secret Projects was asking about the unbuilt Macchi C.204 with Isotta Fraschini Asso L.121 or L.122 V12. I cobbled together this using an online C.202 image -- alas, I'm not sure who did the original  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 27, 2012, 01:12:36 PM
Before the Chimera ...  "Eternal glory to Soviet Workers and Peasants!"
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on July 27, 2012, 04:45:02 PM
IL-21 is quite impressive !!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 28, 2012, 12:47:20 AM
 :-* I love your Il-21!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 28, 2012, 03:38:40 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on July 28, 2012, 10:35:23 PM
That proto- chimera is amazing :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 29, 2012, 12:20:53 AM
I've got to agree, JP! That "Chimeraski" is an absolute wonder to behold!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 30, 2012, 08:59:03 AM
Thanks folks!  Working on that conceptual Macchi C.204 image inspired a similar AltHist Macchi C.202. My spring-off point was the various negotiations and treaties attempting to tie Italy and France together in the  1930s. What if that succeeded?

That took me to a HS.12Y powered Macchi C.202 in service with a Regia Aeronautica fighting on the side of the Allies. And mightn't the French have been interested in such a Hispano-powered aircraft to bolster their own fighter defences in 1940? So, presented here are:

* The unpainted prototype Macchi C.202 (MM 445) at Lonate Pozzolo on 01 May 1939 before going to the Regia Aeronautica experimental station at Guidonia. The prototype was fitted with a Czech Avia-built HS.12Y.

* An export Macchi for the Armée de l'Air in 2e Escadrille, GC II/7 markings (Panthère noire, inset) at Luxeuil, 20 May 1940. Aircraft '4' had an Alfa Romeo RA.1000 RC.12 Monsone (licenced HS.12Y) and a French armament (including 20mm HS.404 cannon).

* An MC.202 serie II of 79° Squadriglia, 17° Gruppo, 1° Stormo. Having claimed two Luftwaffe kills, 79-8 was lost over Osttirol on 28 June 1940. This aircraft had a RA.1000 RC.12-II Monsone, 20mm Scotti cannon and twin 7.7mm Breda machineguns.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on July 30, 2012, 01:30:07 PM
Those C.202s are rather tasty.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on July 30, 2012, 09:02:16 PM
Love the Il-21 "Batty"  :-*   Way cool!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on July 31, 2012, 02:05:54 AM
It's weird how right your Macchi looks in the French camo but how not quite right in the Italian ones!   :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on July 31, 2012, 02:57:22 AM
Excellent
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 01, 2012, 10:11:09 AM
... but how not quite right in the Italian ones!

Ah, sounds like you're asking for more!  >:D

... Italy split in two after its armistice with Germany. In the north, the Repubblica Sociale Italiana claimed to represent the true roots of fascism. The Luftwaffe helped establish an Aeronautica della RSI using captured equipment. ARSI fighter units were equipped with former French and Regia Aeronautica C.202s as well as newly-built Macchi aircraft.

Standard RSI fighter camouflage consisted of a Luftwaffe-style splinter pattern (colours varying) applied over RA Verde Mimetico 2 base paint. The fuselage sides were sprayed over with undersurface Grigio Chiaro, then blotched with Grigio Azzurro Chiaro 1.

'Yellow 7' is a C.202 serie III newly-delivered direct from the Macchi factory at Lonate Pozzolo. This fighter, based at Turin (Caselle), carries the 'Diavolo Russo' emblem of 410ª Squadriglia CT. ARSI 'claimed' this unit despite the RA's 410ª Squadriglia still existing in East Africa, resulting in the same squadron number with similar emblems existing in both Italian air arms!

The Regia Aeronautica C.202 serie II wears the 'uovo in camicia' (poached egg) scheme. This Grottaglie-based Macchi has the 'Cavallino Rampante' emblem of 91ª Squadriglia CT, 10 Gruppo CT, 4 Stormo CT. 91-5 was lost in the Mediterranean during the retreat from Apulia to Libya.

C.202 serie I 154-5 originated with the Armée de l'Air. Surrendered to the Luftwaffe, 154-5 was repainted and issued to the ARSI only to have its pilot defect to the Regia Aeronautica in Sardinia. There, this Macchi served with 154ª Squadriglia of 3º Gruppo Autonomo Caccia at Monserrato (then re-equipping from Fiat CR.32s). 154-5 was lost to a Bf-109 before it could be repainted in full Regia Aeronautica colours.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 01, 2012, 03:59:24 PM
Dewoitine + Macchi = LOVE  :D
Looks very very good,me likey  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 01, 2012, 06:47:18 PM
I don't use the word sexy very often but if I did.......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 01, 2012, 11:48:55 PM
I don't use the word sexy very often but if I did.......

The only thing that could make this any hotter would be spats!  :-* :-* :-*

Although I'm already swooning as is!

Excellent work, Apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 02, 2012, 01:11:15 PM
Quote from: Brian da Basher link=topic=351.msg23960#msg23960
The only thing that could make this any hotter would be [b
spats[/b]!

Oooo, don't tempt me evil one!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 07, 2012, 12:00:23 PM
Ages ago I did a 3-view of a single-seat FAA fighter derived from the Blackburn Skua. Unfortunately, the drawing I worked from wasn't very accurate. So, revisting an oldie, here's the Blackburn B.25 Firebird naval fighter (to O.30/35).

The idea was an alternative to the Sea Gladiator biplane with maximum commonality with the shipboard divebomber of the day. Not a very original concept but it was fun to play with. Once done, I decided to do a 'Mk.II' with Merlin engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on August 07, 2012, 12:04:25 PM
I like it!  Not sure the name would go over well in 1940, but it sure looks the business.  I especially like the Merlin version. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 07, 2012, 05:45:20 PM
The Merlin version looks great.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 07, 2012, 08:07:52 PM
I absolutely love the Merlin Skua although I agree the admiralty would take a dim view of "Jaeger". Perhaps Auk, Guillemot, Petrel, Cormorant. Even Gannet was used by the FAA twice, with the Hellcat initially named Gannet. Why not make it three times?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 09, 2012, 03:58:48 AM
Since jaegers are smaller skuas, it seemed like a good fit. But, I can see how a name derived from Jäger mightn't be all that popular in the '30s!  :o

EH: good alternative bird names but, if I can't stay within the Stercorariidae, I thought I'd spin off from the Roc name. So, I changed the name to another mythical creature ... the Firebird ... hinting at Blackburn's future Firebrand fighter  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 09, 2012, 06:29:38 AM
Your Blackburn Firebirds are wonderful, apophenia! I really like your thinking behind them and FAA colors are always a plus!

I never thought I'd say that, but with the Mk. II, I've finally seen a Blackburn that's easy on the eyes!

Outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on August 09, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
 Great work, I wonder if there is a FAA Hawker family in development.  A carrier based Henley dive bomer anyone?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 09, 2012, 08:42:46 PM
Firebird is most apropos indeed!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 10, 2012, 11:38:27 AM
Thanks folks! Here's the next installment:

A 'growth' version of the Blackburn B.25, the Firebird Mk.III, was put forward to meet N.11/40 for a Napier Sabre-powered, cannon-armed naval interceptor. Two proposals were made.

The Mk.III (1) was a 'least mod' version of the Merlin Firebird, powered by a 2100 hp Sabre I and armed with four 20mm Hispano cannons. The Mk.III (2) was a more radical redesign of the original Firebird with a mid-positioned Sabre driving an extension shaft and a 40mm Vickers S gun firing through a 'hollow' propeller shaft.

In the end, another Blackburn design was chosen to meet the N.11/40 specification, the B.37 Firebrand.

I never thought I'd say that, but with the Mk. II, I've finally seen a Blackburn that's easy on the eyes!

I always thought that the late-model 'Firebrick' looked half decent. Obviously that one snuck past and typical Blackburn esthetics returned for the Firecrest   :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 12, 2012, 07:10:46 AM
Litvak's mention of her AltBC site reminded me that I'd done an HAE ad.
http://altcan.webs.com/altbc/ (http://altcan.webs.com/altbc/)

So, here's a 1938 clipping from The Vancouver Sun advertising Hoffar Aero Engines' stand at the Vancouver Exhibition at Hastings Park.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 13, 2012, 10:25:04 AM
Spinning off from one of Thiel's concepts ...

At the end of WWII, Danish authorities were ordered to destroy all abandoned or captured German military equipment. Instead, the Danes followed their own 1940 example and hid aircraft and weapons away. One such aircraft was the Heinkel He-219A-7 night fighter.

The He-219 Uhu (Eagle Owl) was a high performance aircraft but Denmark had no pressing need for a night fighter. The He-219A-7s were issued to the Marinens Flyvevæsen (Naval Air Service) which employed them in the anti-shipping role. In MF service, the He-219A-7 became the L.A.2  Høgeugle (or Hawk Owl).*

By 1948, the Danes were running low on spares for the L.A.2's DB 603A engines. One aircraft (297) was set aside for engine conversion. Based on weight and size, it was concluded that the RR Griffon VI would make a suitable substitute powerplant. Re-engined with this 1,850 hp engine, 297 became the prototype L.A.3 Høgeugle II.

[* L.A. was the MF code for Landfly Angrebsfly or a land-based attack aircraft. Originally, the L.A.II was to be named Stor-Hornugle - a direct translation of the German Uhu was proposed. But the Eurasian Eagle Owl had become extinct in Denmark late in the 19th century. The extant Høgeugle was chosen as a substitute namesake.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on August 13, 2012, 10:56:47 AM
Griffon-powered Uhu looks pretty great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 13, 2012, 12:26:11 PM
The one with a nose cone is nicely completing the Uhu family, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 13, 2012, 04:45:16 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: TerryCampion on August 13, 2012, 08:12:00 PM
Great 219s!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on August 13, 2012, 09:43:20 PM
A Uhu with Griffons and five blade props?!  Hell, yeah!!! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 14, 2012, 11:56:38 AM
Thanks folks. Here's the next installment ...

A Uhu with Griffons and five blade props?!  Hell, yeah!!! :)

The original concept for the L.A. III was to use four-bladed propellers from surplus RAF Spitfire XIIs (also the source of the Griffon VI engines).

Hawker designed a revised nacelle and cowling (with chin radiator) under contract but it was decided that this was too complex. In the end, the Spitfire XII cowling was retained with the Spit's radiators mounted under the wing on either side of the nacelle.

The upgraded L.A.IIA  Høgeugle is also shown.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 14, 2012, 12:13:55 PM
Secret archives are full of wonders! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: TerryCampion on August 14, 2012, 05:40:44 PM
Oh how lovely... :-* :-* :-* :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 16, 2012, 05:45:21 AM
These 219s are great. Keep 'em coming!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 16, 2012, 06:00:36 AM
A new take on an old (and not terribly original) idea for a single-engined de Havilland fighter based on a Mosquito scale-o-rama from 1/72 to 1/48...

The de Havilland DH.96 Dragonet was an unsuccessful contender for Air Ministry Specification F10/35. The Dragonet prototype is shown as originally flown with its DH.93 Don-style undercarriage and low fuselage deck.

The lower view shows the revised DH.96 prototype in April 1937. The upper fuselage deck has been raised and undercarriage revised to lessen drag. The scrap view shows the unrealized plan to replace the wooden Watts two-blader with a de Havilland two-pitch, three-blade propeller.

Ultimately, the DH.96 lost out to the rival Supermarine Spitfire but the Dragonet's moulded wood construction influenced the DH.98 Mosquito.

De Havilland DH.96 Dragonet Specifications

Power - 1 x Rolls-Royce PV-XII V12 liquid-cooled engine
Dimensions - length: 27 ft 6 in (8.38m), span: 36 ft 2 in (11.02m), wing area: 302 sq ft (28.12m2)

[The RW DH.96 was an unbuilt basic trainer to AM Spec T.1/37. The serial I took from the DH.82B Queen Bee (mostly because K5055 followed the Type 300 Spitfire prototype's serial).]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 16, 2012, 06:32:19 AM
Hmmm...I'm liking the idea of scale-o-raming a Mossie.  Maybe put Big Arsed Guns where the nacelles are...hmm, maybe as a British equivalent to the Il-2....hmmm, brain cogs turning... ::)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 16, 2012, 10:49:36 AM
Greg,

A scale-o-rama'd Mosquito is about 2/3rds the size of the Ilyushin. That would probably still work as a single-seater though.

When I started on this, I was thinking more of something like an updated (and martial) DH.88 Comet. The ideal was a DH rival for the Westland Whirlwind (whose canopy I've pinched).

With no suitable engines available in 1939, I made my own by stretching the 12-cyl Gipsy King to create a 16-cylinder 'Gipsy Emperor'  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 19, 2012, 08:37:20 AM
An Australian AC1 Sentinel cruiser tank hull with the turret of the Canadian Skink anti-aircraft vehicle (4 x 20mm Polsten cannon). Seemed like it might be a handy combo for island fighting  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on August 19, 2012, 09:18:36 AM
Sweet!

That would fit very well with a notional 2nd AIF Armoured Corps in North Africa / Italy in deployed in exchange for every Ghurka and West African battalian being sent to support the defence of Australia.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 19, 2012, 10:25:25 AM
I love your Comet/Whirlwind hybrid :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 19, 2012, 02:29:37 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2012, 07:05:33 AM
Spring off from Litvyak's AltBC thread:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=19.msg25302#msg25302 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=19.msg25302#msg25302)

In 1929 the Royal BC Navy issued a requirement for a float-fighter suited to coastal operations. The aircraft was to be locally built and points would be assigned for local compenents (an HAE fixed-pitched wooden propeller being mandatory). Submissions were received from Boeing, Bolas, de Havilland, and Supermarine.

The first submission was from the newly-formed Bolas Aircraft of BC. The unnamed Bolas float fighter was an updated Parnall Plover with monocoque wooden fuselage and a single-float gear with outriggers (by Hoffar Aircraft Floats).

Power for the Bolas float fighter was meant to be a 600 hp HAE HIV-12A-2. When that engine failed its bench tests, a cowled 525 hp Bristol Jupiter XIF radial was substituted. The RBCN rejected the Bolas float fighter as having insufficient development potential, encouraging Bolas to work on more advanced designs.

De Havilland BC proposed a development of the parent firm's DH.77 light fighter. This aircraft would have an enlarged tailplane and be powered by a 301 hp air-cooled Napier Halford/E.95 Rapier Srs. I engine.

As the DH.77(BC), this 'Diamondback Moth' was the only submission with a cockpit canopy to deal with BC's weather. However, the RBCN's technical board was dubious of the complex Napier engine. DHBC declined to redesign the DH.77(BC) for an indigenous HAE powerplant and the 'Diamondback Moth' was withdrawn from the float fighter competition.

Other than the winning Supermarine Stingray, the only submission to the 1929 float-fighter competition to reach the hardware stage was Boeing's Model 100BC 'Botanie'.*  This was the parent firm's Model 100 mounted on twin Edo floats and powered by a 525 hp Pratt & Whitney S1D1 Wasp or 560 hp SD-1 Hornet.

Boeing was prepared to discuss other engine options including the 490 hp Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar VI, 500 hp Bristol Jupiter XI, and 585 hp Wright SR-1820-F-41 Cyclone. No HAE powerplant option was discussed. The Model 100BC demonstrator was flown from Seattle to Esquimalt for trials but the RCBN had already set its cap on Supermarine's Stingray.

[* Botanie = 'shrouded by cloud (or fog)' in Nlaka'pamux/Thompson.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=889.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=889.0)

The Concorde Ideas and Inspiration thread got me wondering about how the 1/144 scale kit would scale-o-rama into 1/72nd. Scale length would be around 31.05m which (if the nose is shortened slightly) puts it in the same range as the B-58 Hustler (29.5 m long).

So, here's BAC's mini-Concorde for the RAF. I've show it with a B-58 style pylon for a pod but, since it's BAC, maybe a miniature version of the BAC (ex-Bristol) X-12 Pandora ramjet ASM?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 20, 2012, 12:12:17 PM
Wow! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 20, 2012, 03:58:45 PM
DH-77 is definitely the most attractive,well done !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 21, 2012, 06:10:57 AM
Rather partial to the Boeing 100 myself.  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2012, 05:14:52 AM
Thanks folks. I'm keen on the DH.77 too (on the Boeing 100, I wonder if I haven't made the floats too big?).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2012, 05:16:34 AM
The RCAF had taken the Armstrong Whitworth Siskin Mk.IIIA into service in 1926. Having declined Armstrong Whitworth's suggestion of new AW.16s upgrading in-service Siskins was proposed.

Armstrong Whitworth's first proposal, AW.3C (I), simply re-engined the Siskin with a 525 hp Armstrong Siddeley Panther IIA 2-row radial to approximate AW.16 performance. The second proposal, AW.3C (II), was a more extensive rebuild with a cowled Panther IIA, undercarriage spats, and all-around higher speed.

With rather less enthusiasm, Armstrong Whitworth prepared another alternative proposal at the RCAF's request. This AW.3C (II) variant would be powered by a Rolls-Royce Kestrel II V12 engine. Although the Armstrong Whitworth proposals were private ventures, the RCAF felt obliged to open a competition to propose performance upgrades for its Siskin Mk.IIIA fighter fleet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2012, 05:18:40 AM
Both Fairchild and Bellanca entries into the Siskin rebuild contest were high-wing monoplane conversions.

Fairchild Aircraft Ltd. of Longueuil, Quebec, had the simplest Siskin upgrade proposal -- removing the sesquiplane lower wing and provide new upper wing struts. The AS Jaguar engine was to be retained but fitted with a new Townsend ring cowling.

Fleet Aircraft of Fort Erie, Ontario, was to supply a hinged cockpit canopy for cold-weather flying. MacDonald Brothers Aircraft of Winnipeg would supply skis. Fairchild submitted a separate proposal for Siskin monoplanes fitted with twin Fairchild duralumin floats.

Having recently supplied their CH-300 Pacemaker utility aircraft to the RCAF, Bellanca was also eager to enter the 'Super-Siskin' contest. With no manufacturing facility of its own in Canada, Bellanca joined forces with Canadian Vickers in Montreal (which had earlier built six of the RCAF's Pacemakers on Bellanca's behalf).

Bellanca's proposal also reused the Siskin's upper wing, now supported by typical Bellanca aerofoil-section struts. A single-row US radial was to replace the British original and a larger Bellanca-style fin and rudder substituted. Bellanca offered a Wright R-1750 Cyclone as an alternative to the P&W Wasp.

[BTW, the Siskin was based on a sideview by Zygmunt Szeremeta. I love this guy's stuff ... although he reversed the rudder colour arrangement on his Siskin  ;) ]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 22, 2012, 11:59:12 AM
I like the inline one :-*
(sorry not to be in love with the old radial style)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 01, 2012, 10:41:29 AM
Raafif's Corsair rearrangements got me musing ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=852.165 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=852.165)

What if that honker of an engine was put in the middle?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on October 01, 2012, 10:50:54 AM
I love those Siskins! But that F4U looks intriguingly unique, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 01, 2012, 11:36:22 AM
Wonderful Corsair with central engine! :-*
A mix of Mustang FTB and XP-56 and Cordair all at once!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on October 01, 2012, 12:24:44 PM
you sure the engine is in the central fuselage ??

It looks like it's out on the starboard wing to me (= asymetric layout ;) )  Obviously it'd need an exposed drive-shaft across to the fuselage then a V-drive up to the prop !! :o ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 01, 2012, 12:28:04 PM
On a Mustang basis, this might be interesting too:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 01, 2012, 07:24:49 PM
I see some definite P-75 influence there:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-32.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on October 01, 2012, 09:13:45 PM
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on October 02, 2012, 03:49:54 AM
Inspirational as usual !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 02, 2012, 05:13:18 AM
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?


Err...yes... :-[

Here are some more I took:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-33.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-34.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-35.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-36.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-37.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-38.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 02, 2012, 07:49:49 AM
Thanks folks. And well-spotted on the P-75 influence Greg (partly for the extra nose guns ... I mean, what self-respecting über-fighter would only carry 6 x .50-cals?!)

It looks like it's out on the starboard wing to me (= asymetric layout ;) )  Obviously it'd need an exposed drive-shaft across to the fuselage then a V-drive up to the prop !!

Or is it actually a twin-boomer with cross shaft drives?  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on October 02, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
Is that your finger in the photo, Greg?


Err...yes... :-[

Here are some more I took:

([url]http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/photo-33.jpg[/url])


What's that big white thing in the back ground?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on October 02, 2012, 09:48:58 AM

What's that big white thing in the back ground?  ;D

I'd like to know, too!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 02, 2012, 11:09:07 AM
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 02, 2012, 11:42:50 AM
It looks like it's out on the starboard wing to me (= asymetric layout ;) )  Obviously it'd need an exposed drive-shaft across to the fuselage then a V-drive up to the prop !!
Or is it actually a twin-boomer with cross shaft drives?  >:D
If it were a twin-boomer with 2 fins and 2 engines, I guess there would be contrarotating propellers in the nose, no?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 03, 2012, 12:28:37 AM
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)

Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on October 03, 2012, 02:00:31 AM
It's the Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142A transport-turned-demonstrator. Under the Defence Production Sharing Agreement, the US was to develop a 4-engined  tiltwing transport (the C-142A) while Canada developed a 2-engined  tiltwing transport (the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert)

Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...

I was being facetious.  >:D

I didn't know about the shared developed between the CL-84 and C-142.

The XC-142 is cool but I do need to bow before the XB-70 and kiss the tires one more time before I die.  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 03, 2012, 10:49:34 AM
Or possibly the XB-70 if that is the big thing referred to...

Ah, sorry, I have a blind spot for those unfortunate airframes bereft of propellers.

I didn't know about the shared developed between the CL-84 and C-142.

There wasn't any real technology sharing going on. The DPSA was about avoiding duplicated production efforts between US and Canadian aerospace firms. (The Defence Development Sharing Arrangement was separate agreement meant to give Canadian industry access to US technology but, as far as I've been able to tell, had no effect on Canadian tiltwing design.)

Since LTV had the lead on their 'large' tiltwing design, Canadair abandoned development of its equivalent (the CL-64 which used up to 8 engines in pairs). Instead, the Canadair team under Karlis Irbitis focused on smaller tiltwing designs -- the recce CL-73/CL-74 and the CL-84 (which started out as a DHC Beaver-sized utility aircraft).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 03, 2012, 10:50:27 AM
I'm keen on buried mid-engines for fighters. But are they enough?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 03, 2012, 11:24:06 AM
Was your Fw190 a forefather of the Arsenal VB-10 or a derivative? Nice anyway... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on October 03, 2012, 01:28:39 PM
I'm keen on buried mid-engines for fighters. But are they enough?

That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 08, 2012, 06:25:43 AM
That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?

Yep, that'd be a nice, simple solution 'north! I was originally thinking a Jumo 213 in front and a DB603 in the centre. Luftwaffe erks would've loved that!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 08, 2012, 06:26:56 AM
A few more Mosquito prequels ...

The DH.92 Destroyer (bottom) was de Havilland's late submission to P.23/35. De Havilland argued that a airframe of non-strategic wooden construction was a better use of resources. The Air Ministry preferred the all-metal Fairey Battle. The Destroyer recycled the designation of the abandoned DH.92 Dolphin.

The DH.96TF Decimator was another late entry ... this time to F.9/35 for a 2-seat, 4-gun turret fighter. The DH.96 Dragonet fighter airframe was adapted for the job. Again, the AM preferred an all-metal design as its Demon replacement (the Boulton-Paul Defiant because of its superior turret installation).

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg25109#msg25109 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg25109#msg25109)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 08, 2012, 11:27:40 AM
Raafif's Corsair rearrangements got me musing ...
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=852.165[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=852.165[/url])

What if that honker of an engine was put in the middle?

Looks like a cleaner job than the Piaggio P.119 which also put an air-cooled radial in the middle.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 08, 2012, 11:37:41 AM
Your DH.92 and 96TF are nice addition to the family of British planes of the 1930s, thanks. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2012, 11:22:25 AM
In 1935 Vought bought rights to the all-metal Northrop 3A fighter which it developed as the V-141 for a USAAC competition. But Vought had as little success with the V-141 through V-150 lineage as had Northrop.

In 1937, the Vought design team responsible for the V-156 divebomber sought the chance to draught a naval fighter of its own. The result was the V-160 using the same construction techniques as production SB2Us as well as sharing some components.

The US Navy and its Bureau of Aeronautics liked the V-160 design but had reservations over its narrow wheel track (resulting from adopting a reduced-span SB2U centre section). In a re-design, Vought changed the centre section to a reversed gull configuration which also gave more deck clearance for the P&W R-1830's propeller.

The BuAer re-assigned the designation of the 1933 XF3U 2-seat fighter to the new single-seater. However, the XF3U-2 concept was eclipsed by another bent-wing design -- the V-166A Corsair.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on October 10, 2012, 12:14:06 PM
I've always loved the Vought V-141 and V-143, so any more along this like will get a big thumbs up from me!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on October 10, 2012, 06:34:44 PM
Very nice concept. I like it!

regards
Lauhof
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 11, 2012, 12:16:01 PM
Great additions to the Corsair family... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 12, 2012, 08:14:14 AM
That's quite the Fw-190 concept, but that intake duct along the side for the second engine is going to be a huge drag penalty.

Could you not just design the underbelly radiator housing in such a way that the intake could be incorporated into it?

Yep, that'd be a nice, simple solution 'north! I was originally thinking a Jumo 213 in front and a DB603 in the centre. Luftwaffe erks would've loved that!
.

... or just use separate supercharger intakes for each engine ala the Do 335. ;D

The side entry to the scroll of the standard fore-and-aft arranged German superchargers would
mean turning the air through 90° if you used a bottom intake



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 12, 2012, 09:49:19 AM
Logan: I'm a V-141 fan too. I was tempted to do an F3U on Kingfisher floats but decided that was too obvious.

Jon: The Dornier engineers cheated by reversing their rear engine  ;)

Today's post isn't so much a whif as might-have-beens. The Fokker D.XXII (ontwerp 150 and 151) were outgrowths of the fixed-gear D.XXI fighter. I've put the 150 in operational colours and marked the 151 as a prototype (could the Dutch have got access to Merlins in 1939?)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 12, 2012, 11:55:55 AM
I had never noticed the D.XXI was so close to a Curtiss P-40. Thanks for having opened my eyes! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on October 12, 2012, 01:40:59 PM
That fokker 'ontwerp 151' D.XXII is the Dutch P-40! Very nice concept. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on October 12, 2012, 03:43:25 PM
It's very interesting how an inline engine can change the whole look of things.

I'll agree that the radial engined Fokker D.XXII looks like a Curtiss product, but more like a P-36 than a P-40 to my eyes.

The inline version has "Hawker" written all over it, it looks like it belongs in the Hurricane lineage somewhere.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2012, 04:39:33 AM
Thanks folks. It is a nice concept. But I can't take credit ... de Fokker ingenieurs deden goed werk!   ;)

Maybe its the line of the forward upper fuselage but the ontwerp 150 reminds me a little of an under-nourished Hellcat.

For anyone brave enough to tackle a plastic version, I based the ontwerp 151's nose on the Fairey Barracuda's cowling. However, drawings show a variation on the 151 theme with a belly radiator.

The fuselage and horizontal tail of either ontwerp 150 or 151 could be modded from the D.XXI. The main wheels are canted so a Bloch MB-150 undercarriage might work.

The wings are the real puzzle. Structurally they would be similar to the D.XXI but with more dihedral and a much deeper leading edge (ahead of the front spar). A cut and splice of the D.XXI might work but, I'd imagine, getting the wheel wells in would be a real challenge.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on October 14, 2012, 02:21:45 AM
I see the malnoursished Hellcat, but I think it's the overall shape (especially the canopy) that creates the image in my mind...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 14, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
More Fokker might-have-beens ...

Bottom is the previously-mentioned variation on the Merlin-engined Ontwerp 151 with the belly radiator bath. I seem to remember a DB 600H alternative engine for the D.XXII as well but have no references.

Equally difficult to find references on is the Fokker D.XXIV, a D.XXI derivative with the Mercury replaced by a sleeve-valve Bristol Perseus and the spatted main gear eclipsed by a retractable undercarriage. No ontwerp number was recorded when this project was announced on 19 June 1939. The D.XXIV designation was referred to three days later.

In the available sideview sketch, the D.XXIV undercarriage looks similar to FR-167 (the experimental Finnish D.XXI installation) but not identical. I used a Macchi C.200 gear as my starting point.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 14, 2012, 01:58:39 PM
After the Fokker P-40, we have the Fokker Hurricane, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 16, 2012, 10:18:12 AM
Thanks Tophe. Here's the last of the Fokker projects ... promise  ;)

The Fokker Ontwerp 126 was a 1935 study for a light reconnaissance bomber à la the contemporary Fairey Battle. I assume that the Ontwerp 126 was intended as a replacement for the Fokker C.X biplane.

Like the Battle, the Ontwerp 126 had a liquid-cooled engine (exhaust ports suggesting an HS-12Y rather than the C.X's Kestrel). The Ontwerp 126 also differed from the Battle in having a spatted main gear and a fuselage bomb bay (rather like the Kawasaki Ki-32 'Mary' or Mitsubishi Ki-30 'Ann').

Unlike any of the designs mentions, the Ontwerp 126 was to have two belly gun positions (one firing to the rear, another firing straight down). Planned offensive load seems to have been four 100 kg bombs.

Defensive armament would be the LVA's standard FN Colt-Browning 7,9mm No.3 machine guns but the exact number is unclear. One (or two) MGs were synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Another MG on a flexible mount fired from the observer's dorsal position. Either that dorsal MG or the ventral MG could also be re-positioned to the vertical ventral position.

For the fin markings, I've re-dubbed the Ontwerp 126 as the Fokker 'C.XII', AFAIK, that was a designation never applied by the LVA.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on October 16, 2012, 10:40:18 AM
Ooo, I like a lot.  It's like a Dutch PZL.23 Karas.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on October 16, 2012, 03:47:03 PM
Smashing Fokker's ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 16, 2012, 05:59:37 PM
Those look so natural.  Great work.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2012, 11:10:43 AM
Thanks folks :D

Ooo, I like a lot.  It's like a Dutch PZL.23 Karas.

Yep, there's one that did have belly protection! Makes me wonder what a Karas with liquid-cooled engine would've looked like.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
The SB3U-2 Volley was a replacement for Vought's SB2U Vindicator and a stablemate for the Douglas SBD. Powered by the same Wright Cyclone as the Dauntless, the Volley retained much of the structure of Vought's advanced XF4U-1 Corsair fighter.

The SB3U-2 performed well and had commonality with the F4U. However, the US Navy wanted Vought to concentrate on Corsairs and Kingfishers. Although appreciated for its firepower (4 x .50" wing guns), the Volley was phased out in favour of the Dauntless. The SB3U-2 last saw action with Marine units based on Midway Island.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 17, 2012, 11:15:57 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on October 20, 2012, 07:17:50 PM
The mid-engined Corsair, Volley and Ontwerp 126 are brilliant!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 21, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
I like the SB3U completing the Vought family, like a missing link... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 22, 2012, 09:54:43 AM
Thanks folks. I had a French Volley and Ki.45 (as wartime A-18 Shrike II) in the works but my CPU has given up the ghost. A new power supply proved an insufficient offering (I'm guessing the motherboard fried).  :icon_crap:

Hi ho. Anyhoo, being (temporarily?) PhotoShopless, it may be a while before I have more images to post  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on October 22, 2012, 10:06:06 AM
Sorry to hear THAT!  But I can relate - I once lost over 1000 drawing files.  Save, schmave!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on October 22, 2012, 11:07:20 AM
I'm keen on buried mid-engines for fighters. But are they enough?

This is a gem of a profile.  Like late 1945 going into Luft 46......   :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on October 23, 2012, 03:10:48 PM
The Vought-volley is superb! Sorry to hear about your crash :(.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2012, 05:11:59 AM
Thanks for the sympathy votes guys  ;)  Oh well, if nothing else, I'm becoming intimately familiar with the innards of my CPU ...

Sorry to hear THAT!  But I can relate - I once lost over 1000 drawing files.  Save, schmave!

Camarade!  That must've sucked big time. My stuff is all on a separate hard drive so, once I've cobbled together another CPU, I should be able to retrieve it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 02, 2012, 11:48:28 AM
I've been playing with a borrowed laptop. It's not very happy with Photoshop but here's my first attempt ...

This was inspired (appropriately enough) by the Hawker Sea Hawk Ideas and Inspiration section. It occurred to me that since the Sea Hawk itself evolved from a propeller-driven fighter, there was no real reason that it couldn't be turned back into a 'proper' airplane.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 02, 2012, 12:25:07 PM
Great first try... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 02, 2012, 12:41:59 PM
Sweet!!! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on November 02, 2012, 04:54:06 PM
Nice one! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on November 02, 2012, 06:21:45 PM
Nice. Inspired by the  Me 509?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 02, 2012, 06:37:01 PM
Now do the turboprop version...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 03, 2012, 12:45:06 AM
Now do the turboprop version...
Or a twin-turboprop version with exhausts more or less where the Sea Hawk exhausts are.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 04, 2012, 11:28:51 AM
Nice. Inspired by the  Me 509?

Perhaps subconsciously?

Now here's Evan's turboprop version (the Turbo Hawk with AS Twin Boas)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 04, 2012, 01:09:17 PM
Nice. Inspired by the  Me 509?

Perhaps subconsciously?

Now here's Evan's turboprop version (the Turbo Hawk with AS Twin Boas)
Oh, damn, that looks nice!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on November 04, 2012, 03:21:35 PM
Wow!  The piston Hawk was cool, but the turboprop version is awesome!  Great job!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 04, 2012, 05:27:57 PM
Damn!  Now  I know what to do with that SeaHawk kit...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 05, 2012, 02:25:12 AM
Damn!  Now  I know what to do with that SeaHawk kit...
My thoughts as I have an Eastern Express/Novo/Frog kit to do something with.  that looks most enticing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 13, 2012, 07:54:37 AM
Thanks guys. Here's another with training wheels on (I'm trying out another borrowed laptop).

Not a terribly original idea but basically a Spiteful canopy and fuel tank on a Spitfire Mk.II. I thought the Spiteful's extra fuel capacity would be handy on Rhubarb Ops. 1941 seemed a bit early for a full blown Perspex canopy so I went with a two-part transparency. BTW, the original Spitfire Mk.IIa profile was by  Robert Grudzien.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 13, 2012, 03:04:53 PM
Different.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 14, 2012, 12:16:17 AM
Differently beautiful...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2012, 12:09:54 PM
This embryonic Tigercat is a project rather than a whif ...

The Grumman Model 51 began as the unbuilt XP-65 for the USAAF. But the G51 was also entered into a 1940 US Navy competition for a fighter/land attack aircraft for the planned Midway Class battle carriers. The Grumman concept was further developed, emerging as the XF7F-1.

Modeling the G51 would be tricky. Compared with the F7F, the nose is considerably shorter; the shorter rear fuselage is shaped completely differently as is the vertical tail; the nacelles are longer and more conical; the wings are mid-set (and shaped more like those of the XF5F/XP-50); and the canopy is bigger.

I've shown the canopy as a lengthened version of the F7F's one-piece glazing. It is just as likely that the original Model 51 canopy would have looked more like that of the Hellcat.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Daryl J. on November 15, 2012, 03:14:04 PM
Cool stuff!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on November 16, 2012, 12:11:32 AM
(http://www.doomisland2.com/images/avatars/wub1.gif) (http://www.doomisland2.com/images/avatars/wub1.gif) (http://www.doomisland2.com/images/avatars/wub1.gif)  I love this one!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 16, 2012, 12:57:36 AM
you make me dream of a single-engined (asymmetric) low wing Tigercat, thanks.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 16, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
Great stuff, any LL G-51 coming?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 17, 2012, 06:28:52 AM
Thanks folks.  [arc': "LL" as in 'Launch and Leave' or ... ?]

This time it is a whif. What if Grumman persisted with the XF5F theme but scaled up for larger engines? I present the F7F-1 Tomcat (original RW name for the Tigercat).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 17, 2012, 06:37:10 AM
Launch or leave sounds interesting(?) but I was thinking Lend-Lease
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 17, 2012, 06:39:25 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 17, 2012, 06:42:43 AM
Launch or leave sounds interesting(?) but I was thinking Lend-Lease

Hmmm, never thought of British colours ... tempting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 17, 2012, 11:01:57 AM
And here she is ... the early version Grumman Model 51 as an operational FAA Tigercat FR.Mk.IIA
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on November 17, 2012, 11:09:10 AM
And here she is ... the early version Grumman Model 51 as an operational FAA Tigercat FR.Mk.IIA

I have two of the Aoshima kits in the stash. I know now how to finish one kit.

Very nice in GSB.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jschmus on November 17, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
Thanks folks.  [arc': "LL" as in 'Launch and Leave' or ... ?]

This time it is a whif. What if Grumman persisted with the XF5F theme but scaled up for larger engines? I present the F7F-1 Tomcat (original RW name for the Tigercat).

From what I remember, Grumman tried to use Tomcat a couple of times before the F-14, but BuAer or whomever always rejected it on the basis of the name being "slutty", though they rejected it in more polite terms.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 18, 2012, 07:21:44 AM
Well, tomcats do have that reputation  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on November 19, 2012, 05:20:21 AM
 ..... and is it just coincidence that the Tailhook scandal only happened after the F-14's introduction ? ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 19, 2012, 12:13:53 PM
More ur-Spiteful musings ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 19, 2012, 01:20:48 PM
Looks great reminds me of the Arsenal VG series
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 19, 2012, 01:38:03 PM
Ah, very nice.  I agree with arc, though.  They do look a bit like the Arsenal VG with that wing shape and cockpit, though the tail is completely different, obviously.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on November 19, 2012, 01:49:13 PM
Those are slick, speedy looking critters, aren't they?

I quite like them.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 21, 2012, 11:23:10 AM
Thanks guys. I take those Arsenal comparisons as compliments -- the VG series are long-time personal favourites!

The production Spiteful differed from the final prototype configuration in a number of details. Other than armament  (2 x 20mm Hispanos, 4 x 303-in Brownings), the Spiteful Mk.IA had a Griffon IIB plus a revised canopy and rearview glazing (replacing the prototype's 'turtle back' fairing).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 21, 2012, 04:28:06 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Daryl J. on November 22, 2012, 11:54:25 AM
Fun stuff.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 23, 2012, 06:50:44 AM
A factory-fresh Spiteful Mk.IIIA of No.332 Squadron, RAF North Weald, marked with white distemper stripes for Operation Rutter, July 1942. The Spiteful Mk.IIIA was a low-altitude variant with a cropped-impellor Griffon IV. This aircraft was lost off Dieppe a month later.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 23, 2012, 11:08:54 AM
Supermarine Spiteful F.Mk.VI of 91 (Nigeria) Squadron in invasion stripes during July 1944. The Spiteful F.Mk.VI  introduced a one-piece blown perspex rear deck, individual ejector exhausts, a retractable tailwheel, and heavier armament (4 x 20mm Hispano Mk.II cannons).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on November 23, 2012, 05:17:42 PM
Love your spitefuls! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 23, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
Very beatiful aircraft, have you considered using a Sea Fury canopy?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 24, 2012, 12:17:54 PM
Very beatiful aircraft, have you considered using a Sea Fury canopy?

Thanks! I hadn't considered an alternative bubble canopy. I had assumed the next step would be a Real World-like Spiteful canopy. But I wasn't planning on illustrating that -- too close to the real thing. So, with is probably the last entry on this theme:

A Spiteful F.Mk.VII of 92a Squadriglia, 8° Gruppo, 5° Stormo Aeronautica Militare Italiana, based at Orlo al Serio (Bergamo). These ex-RAF fighters began replacing surplus Spitfires in Italian service in late 1948.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on November 24, 2012, 01:43:22 PM
Hi, Apophenia!

Love the Spitefuls.  The Mk VI is my favorite.  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on November 25, 2012, 01:49:53 AM
These Spiteful are amazing
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 25, 2012, 05:07:26 AM
Very good looking aircraft
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 28, 2012, 06:19:28 AM
Die Stuka mit zwei Brüsten. A twin-engined Ju 87 derivative as Junkers' backup concept for the RLM's 1937 Schlachtflugzeug contest. The usual backstory is availabile if anyone is interested.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 28, 2012, 06:29:55 AM
Is it a Ju 87 variant?  Then yes, I'm interested!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 28, 2012, 06:56:29 AM
Not a Ju 87 variant exactly, but here goes anyway ...  ;D

In April 1937, the Technische Amt of the RLM issued its specification for a new twin-engine ground-attack aircraft (Schlachtflugzeug). Development contracts were issued for the Fw 189C and Hs 129A in Oct 1937. Junkers Flugzeug- und -Motorenwerke AG was not favoured because the RLM wanted the Dessau firm to concentrate of production of the Ju 87 Stuka and development of the Ju 88 schnellbomber.

Junkers design staff believed that both the Focke-Wulf and Henschel submissions lacked promise. As such, Junkers decided to proceed with a private venture to submit to the Technische Amt. In effect, this aircraft was to be a twin-engined Ju 87B development. The fuselage would remain virtually unaltered other than the wing centre section. This was to be extended, incorporate new motor mounts, and have its anhedral almost completely eliminated.

Power would be provided by twin Junkers Jumo 210s. The RLM preferred lower-powered engines and, compared to its new Jumo 211 V12s, Junkers believed that their earlier powerplant qualified. Thus, the proposed Schlachtflugzeug would have twice the power of the Ju 87A-1 while allowing Junkers to extend the production life of the Jumo 210.

Engines and radiators would be armoured from below. Additional armour plating would attached to the inside of the Stuka fuselage and pilot's cockpit was to have an armoured hood with inset 'panzerglas'. The rear gunner would be protected by an armoured glass panel on his flexible gun mount.

The Junkers concept far exceeded the required armament of two Oerlikon MG FF cannons (with the desired addition of twin 7,9 mm machineguns). Attached to the Stuka's former engine bearer points was an interchangable waffenträger. This nose section could be fitted with 10 x 7,9 mm MG17 machineguns, 4 x MG17s and 4 x MG FF cannon, or Junkers' reccommended main guns. These would be twin Bordkanone BK 2,0 to be based on the Luftwaffe's ground-based Mauser anti-aircraft gun. This 2 cm FlaK 30 had a higher muzzle velocity than the requested MG FF while firing a much heavier shell than the Oerlikon.

Offensive bomb load remained the same as the Ju-87 although the Stuka's swinging bomb cradle was no longer needed. Dive brakes were retained but moved outboard on the wings to clear much of the propellers' slipstream.

Although not exactly welcoming of unsolicited offerings, the Technische Amt was intrigued by the possibility of a new twin-engined Schlachtflugzeug making use of the Stuka airframe. However, the EF 044 design was seen as being excessively large yet underarmoured. Junkers was also informed that small, air-cooled engines were the preferred powerplants. Junkers had found an 'in' to the Schlachtflugzeug concept but the designers at Dessau would need to return to their drawing boards ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 28, 2012, 12:14:44 PM
Like to see EF 044 as 1/72 kit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 28, 2012, 04:05:45 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2012, 11:32:23 AM
Thanks folks

Like to see EF 044 as 1/72 kit.

Probably bashable but you'd have to be a glutton for punishment  ;D  Anyhoo, here's the next installment ...

Junkers next foray into the design of a twin-engined Schlachtflugzeug more closely followed the preferences of the RLM's Technische Amt. It was powered by two 460 hp Argus As 410 air-cooled V12s. Armament comprised twin 2cm MG FF cannons in the belly and two 7,9mm MG17 machineguns in the wing roots.

Crew was reduced to one but what startled the Technische Amt was Junkers' choice of a prone pilot. The designers' rationale was that armouring a cockpit for a prone pilot was simpler and allowed much of the nose to be glazed with 'panzerglas' from somewhat improved visibility. Not completely convinced, a prototype and a small pre-production batch of what would be designated Ju 169 were ordered for trials.

In service trails, the Ju 169 outperformed the rival Henschel Hs 129A ... but that wasn't saying much. While the Henschel design lent itself to re-engining with more powerful radial engines, such a reworking of the Junkers Schlachtflugzeug would have left the Ju 169 pilot with no view to the sides at all.

In the end, the Luftwaffe elected to dispose of both designs. The Hs 129A-0s were passed on to the Romanian FARR, the Ju 169A-0s went to the Hungarian Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierö.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2012, 11:33:48 AM
Having outlived their usefulness as Luftwaffe trails aircraft, the 10 Ju 169A-0 pre-production machines and the Ju 169v1 prototype were transfered to the Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierö. Fitted with dive brakes, these aircraft equipped Hungary's 102/1 Zuhanóbombázó század (alongside Ju 87B-1s).

After a little over a year of hard service in the Ukraine, the well-worn Ju 169s were returned to Hungary. Some consideration was given to producing an improved version in Hungary. To that end, the last Ju 169 in Hungarian service was operated by the RKI research flight at Matyasfold until early 1944. Alas, the local plant, Manfred Weiss, was already overworked and the idea was dropped. The planned local production version was to be powered by two 520 hp Walter Sagitta II RC engines and armed with six 12.7mm Gebauer 1940.M machineguns.

The Ju 169 shown has been dubbed 'Páncélozott Pulyka' or 'Armoured Turkey', an indication of the pilots' opinion of the flight qualities of their mounts. This aircraft was shot down by Russian fighters in early May 1943.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on November 29, 2012, 11:36:56 AM
A Hungarian Ju-169 with Jendrassik turboprop engines could be interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 29, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
You have given me ideas for something similar with a Akaflieg Berlin B 9
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on November 30, 2012, 03:56:47 AM
These twins are amazing
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 30, 2012, 05:16:10 AM
The Ju-169 is pretty sweet!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on November 30, 2012, 02:09:50 PM
Those are some fantastic Stuka  developments!

Reminds me that I have to get back to my Stuka alternate history story.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on November 30, 2012, 03:18:23 PM
Loving the zwei motoren stuka! (sorry for hte horrible German).  But great profiles and backstory!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 01, 2012, 06:46:38 AM
Thanks folks! Greg: Yep, the Berlin B 9 was definitely an influence  ;)

A Hungarian Ju-169 with Jendrassik turboprop engines could be interesting

Dang! I wish I'd thought of that  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 02, 2012, 10:12:26 AM
Well I hope you are happy!  I have just ordered a 1/48 Berlin B9 which will be up engined with a pair of Argus As 410 air-cooled V12s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 02, 2012, 02:06:17 PM
Very happy  >:D  Now let's see what kind of armament you can hang off the little B 9  ;)

Going back a bit, arc' mentioned the Jendrassik turboprop. So, instead of a Manfred Weiss design here is a rival concept from László Varga. The first RMI-11 X/H design was basically a shortened version of the RMI-1 fighter with an armoured prone cockpit neatly wrapped in a streamlined perspex nosecone. The second submission was a more radical redesign of the RMI-1 with the turboprops repositioned above the wings.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 02, 2012, 02:28:10 PM
Great work, kind of has an Arado Blitz look to it
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on December 02, 2012, 02:32:30 PM
RMI-1 and RMI-11  :-* :-*
Approximations in styrene are in order.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 02, 2012, 03:21:38 PM
By the way, Apophenia, did you ever see my own take on the EF 044 concept you did?  Mine was mid-war and I called it the Ju 287, but I liked the way it turned out. (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20962.msg297632.html#msg297632)

This was just done with colored pencils many moons ago, but I still rather like it.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/loganov/My%20Pictures/ju287-dark.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 04, 2012, 06:31:08 AM
Thanks folks!

finsrin: There actually was a kit of Varga's RMI-1X/H. The International Resin Modellers Assocation released a 1/72 resin kit ... although I notice that an IRMA kit just sold on ebay for US$82.00  :o

Logan: That is very cool ... but makes me wistful for the days of Staedtler pencil crayons and Pantone markers  :D  Am I right in thinking that your Ju 287 is a scale-o-rama of Ju 88 wing and Ju 288 tail surfaces?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 04, 2012, 06:49:08 AM

Indeed, along with Ju 88 family BMW 801s.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 06, 2012, 12:49:39 PM
Post-Armistice adaptations of the Dewoitine D.520.

Top is a Luftwaffe trainer on loan to l'aviation de LVF in Belarus, July 1942. This unit was formed to support the Légion des Volontaires Français fighting alongside the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union. This 1er Groupe fighter retains a spirale-schnauze but ALVF insignia cover other German markings.

Aircraft of l'aviation de LVF were to wear the 'Fleury cross' but the dominant red of this roundel was deemed unwise on the Eastern Front. Instead, a simple balkan cross was applied over the Luftwaffe crosses. The hache à double emblem of Maréchal Pétain was used as a squadron insignia.

Bottom is a D.520F of the Ilmavoimat. The D.520Fs were ex-AdlA fighters rebuilt for Finland to a German contract. Other than substituted German equipment, the D.520Fs also received Soviet M-105 engines and armament. All Finnish D.520Fs were assigned to LeLv 32. The extended rear glazing is a local modification performed by the Valtion lentokonetehdas.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 06, 2012, 01:08:36 PM
The extended rear glazing is a local modification performed by the Valtion lentokonetehdas.
Wonderful improvement, great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 06, 2012, 01:27:29 PM
Post-Armistice adaptations of the Dewoitine D.520.

Top is a Luftwaffe trainer on loan to l'aviation de LVF in Belarus, July 1942. This unit was formed to support the Légion des Volontaires Français fighting alongside the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union. This 1er Groupe fighter retains a spirale-schnauze but ALVF insignia cover other German markings.

Aircraft of l'aviation de LVF were to wear the 'Fleury cross' but the dominant red of this roundel was deemed unwise on the Eastern Front. Instead, a simple balkan cross was applied over the Luftwaffe crosses. The hache à double emblem of Maréchal Pétain was used as a squadron insignia.

Bottom is a D.520F of the Ilmavoimat. The D.520Fs were ex-AdlA fighters rebuilt for Finland to a German contract. Other than substituted German equipment, the D.520Fs also received Soviet M-105 engines and armament. All Finnish D.520Fs were assigned to LeLv 32. The extended rear glazing is a local modification performed by the Valtion lentokonetehdas.
Damn, I really like that second one.  I could see it doing quite well in that use, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 06, 2012, 01:50:40 PM
That rear glazing is a tremendous improvement. It's going to be a lot harder to sneak up on it now!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 06, 2012, 09:09:32 PM
The Finnish Dewoitine is indeed awesome but I must confess to being intrigued by the concept of the LVF.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 07, 2012, 07:01:26 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: That Ilmavoimat D.520F was, of course, inspired by a combination of French Hawk 75As rebuilt for Finland and the local Klimov-powered Mörkö rebuilds.

EH: The LVF was a real formation (eventually becoming 33 SS Charlemagne) but I made up the aviation component.  (Originally, I was thinking of Vichy going over to the Axis after Oran but the schemes looked too Italian.)

Elsewhere, Greg was asking about further developments of the Dewoitine D.520. I've got a few of those in the works ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 07, 2012, 10:09:12 AM
further developments of the Dewoitine D.520. I've got a few of those in the works ...
teasing... I wish today is next week... :icon_crap: ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 07, 2012, 01:16:12 PM
Patience is a virtue Tophe  ;D  But I was motivated to do another Ilmavoimat D.520F ...

This aircraft is one of a handful of LeLv 32's 'escort' fighters. These top-cover Poronhoitajat (reindeer herders) fighters had their wing machineguns replaced by heavier-calibre weapons (20mm ShVAK cannons or 12.7mm Berezin UB) in underwing pods.

DW-14 is shown based at Latva airfield in March 1944. While applying distemper winter camouflage, the 'erks' have carefully gone around the pilot's personal markings (the cartoon character Pekka Puupää accompanied by the slogan 'Ei hätää!' or 'Don't worry!'.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 08, 2012, 03:24:26 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 11, 2012, 05:59:10 AM
In March 1934, the Service Technique Aéronautique (STAé) issued a requirement for new chasseurs monoplaces to replace both the Dewoitine D.500 and the Loire 46. Dewoitine's belated RW entry was the disasterous D.513 -- which later became the even worse D.514 LP (a spatted monstrocity that only BdB could love!).

But what if Dewoitine had simply built on its previous successes instead? Here I present alternative decendents to the D.500/D.510 series. My D.513 is based on the D.503 fuselage with an all-new wing and retractable undercarriage. The alternative D.514 cleans up that design, introducing a new belly radiator bath and a fully-enclosed cockpit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 11, 2012, 06:15:28 AM
They look great but wasn´t there a D.513 OTL?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 11, 2012, 12:21:38 PM
Yes there was arc'.  I should have more clear that my first paragraph referred to Real World developments.

My AltHist idea was what if Dewoitine had created a direct-evolution replacement for the AdlA's D.500 series a year earlier. So, by jumping a year ahead in my universe, I get to use those designations first  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 12, 2012, 05:15:59 AM
I am loving those Dewoitines! I wonder what Loire's entry would look like?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 12, 2012, 12:39:52 PM
Cheers EH. Following the same logic as the D.513/D.514 development, the Loire submission wouldn't have been the RW Loire 250. Instead, it would've been a more straightforward evolution of the in-service Loire 46 C1. So, here is the prototype Loire/Loire-Nieuport LN-146 C1.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 12, 2012, 12:40:57 PM
Elsewhere, Volkodav suggested "SAAB Draken IV, similar in concept the Mirage IV".
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403)

I present the SAAB Fáfnir supersonic bomber in Flygvapnet service.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 12, 2012, 01:11:38 PM
Elsewhere, Volkodav suggested "SAAB Draken IV, similar in concept the Mirage IV".
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url])

I present the SAAB Fáfnir supersonic bomber in Flygvapnet service.


Why has no one done this before?  I demand more of this "Fáfnir".  Maybe one of your signature profiles with revised gear that give a good sense of scale?  Maybe with some dark bands like this Viggen?

(http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/Zeltweg03/JA37_37411.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 12, 2012, 01:12:25 PM
Heck, that twin Viggen gear might be the solution to the scale gear issue, too.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on December 12, 2012, 06:53:48 PM
Elsewhere, Volkodav suggested "SAAB Draken IV, similar in concept the Mirage IV".
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url])

I present the SAAB Fáfnir supersonic bomber in Flygvapnet service.


Sweet, what engines is that beastie packing?  Avons, Speys or maybe Olympus?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 12, 2012, 06:55:13 PM
Elsewhere, Volkodav suggested "SAAB Draken IV, similar in concept the Mirage IV".
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=695.msg33403#msg33403[/url])

I present the SAAB Fáfnir supersonic bomber in Flygvapnet service.


I do like that but may suggest Mjölner as a name instead
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 13, 2012, 03:23:13 AM
Volkodav: Thanks! I was thinking licenced Speys.

Logan: I had imagined a scaled-up version of the Viggen main gear (although I haven't checked to see if any of this would actually work as a scale-o-rama). I like that two-tone camouflage! Maybe this bomber starts out as a Mirage IV-style nuclear strike aircraft and turns into a fast-and-low conventional bomber?

arc':  Mjölner sounds good (and Thor's hammer fits). I went with Fáfnir because his technique of spreading poison as a deterrent seemed to suit a nuclear bomber somehow  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 13, 2012, 03:58:26 AM
It wouldn't be the first Cold War bomber to go that route!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 13, 2012, 05:56:52 AM
Volkodav: Thanks! I was thinking licenced Speys.

Logan: I had imagined a scaled-up version of the Viggen main gear (although I haven't checked to see if any of this would actually work as a scale-o-rama). I like that two-tone camouflage! Maybe this bomber starts out as a Mirage IV-style nuclear strike aircraft and turns into a fast-and-low conventional bomber?

arc':  Mjölner sounds good (and Thor's hammer fits). I went with Fáfnir because his technique of spreading poison as a deterrent seemed to suit a nuclear bomber somehow  ;)


Have you seen this pic?

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/arc3371/Other/Sdraken.jpg)

Fafnir is a good name (Fafner or Fafne in Swedish) but Sigurds saga isn´t that well known by the general public, Mjölner on the other hand is and as a curiosity I can mention that Eskader 1 (the Attack Group) of the Swedish Air Force was often called ÖB:s Hammare (the Hammer of the CinC)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 13, 2012, 12:36:03 PM
Just a thought, instead of Speys, go a bit bigger and use afterburning Medways.  The Viggen can then use a single one of these instead of a JT8D derivative.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 13, 2012, 02:51:33 PM
Also remember this:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/supedraken.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: sotoolslinger on December 14, 2012, 10:12:13 AM
Pretty much all your stuff is cool 8) But I already have the long nose from an XF5F and your twin Stuka saved... >:D :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 16, 2012, 12:40:35 PM
Thanks all for the feedback and suggestions. Here's my take on the Swedish bomber ...

The Saab 38 Mjölnir began as the Projekt 1400, a larger twin-engined bomber derived from the Saab 36 design. In the beginning, Projekt 1400 shared the dorsal intake layout of the early P.1300-50 Saab 36 as well as that aircraft's 44 kN Sveska Flygmotor RM7 (Bristol Olympus) engine. When the Saab 36 project closed down in Feb 1958, the P.1400 was redesigned as an aerodynamically less risky scaling up of the Saab 35 Draken (Projekt 1200).

As a cost-savings, two of the Draken's RM6 Avon engines were to be used. This changed when the British government  offered to licence the advanced 66.7 kN Rolls-Royce RB.177 Medway turbofan to Sweden. Sveska Flygmotor developed its own afterburner providing the licenced RM8 with 97.8 kN of thrust with reheat. Projekt 1400 was in direct  competition with another Saab project, the nuclear-armed Robot 330 cruise missile. In late 1959, the choice was  made to focus on just one 'bombflygplan' project and the Mjölnir was born.

The B38A Mjölnir entered Flygvapnet service in the summer of 1966 in the nuclear strike role. In the event of war, the B38A dvision was tasked with hitting Warsaw Pact embarkation ports in the Baltic with their free-fall nuclear bombs. This intended role was highly controversial with the Swedish citizenry. By 1968, all Swedish nuclear warheads had been withdrawn from service and modified Mjölnirs were re-roled.

The B38B Mjölnir had pylons for conventional weapons and acted as tactical bombers. By the late 1970s, individual B38Bs were withdrawn for rebuilds. Refurbished aircraft returned to Flygvapnet service as B38C anti-shipping strike  aircraft armed with sea-skimming Saab RB 04 Turbo missiles. It was planned to rearm the B38Cs with superior RBS-15F missiles but years of low-flying had taken its toll on the Saab bombers and the division stood down in 1989.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 16, 2012, 01:21:47 PM
Very nice, well done!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 17, 2012, 06:54:40 AM
Couldn't agree more! Very nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 17, 2012, 08:42:42 AM
Thanks lads. It's a crappy image but gets the idea across. I was having more fun with backstories so decided to do one variation on the theme ...

During the Third Icelandic Cod War, Sweden offered to lease A32 Lansen fighter-bombers armed with Saab Rb04 Turbo anti-shipping missiles. Aircrews of the Landhelgisgæsla Íslands (Icelandic Coast Guard) were dispatched to Sweden in the Spring of 1976 but, before training was complete, the dispute was resolved.

As reports of the British fishing industry's decline reached Iceland, a renewal of the Þorskastríðin was judged as a genuine possibility. By then, the Lansen were retired. In May 1983, discussions began of the short-term lease of Flygvapnet B38C Mjölnir. An agreement was quickly arrived at and former Icelandic Lansen trainees were dispatched to Sweden to begin working up on the larger Mjölnir.

With Flygvapnet markings overpainted with a scheme appropriate to the North Atlantic, the B38C entered Icelandic service redubbed as the Saab Sleipnir (a reference to the aircraft's eight main wheels). Although flown by 'Gæslan' personnel and in Coast Guard markings, technically, these aircraft belonged to the Icelandic Defence Agency (Varnarmálastofnun Íslands). By agreement with Sweden, the leased B38Cs had their refuelling probes removed after arrival in Iceland to emphasize the aircrafts' defensive nature.

The normal load-out for the Sleipnir was six Saab Rb04 Turbo anti-shipping missiles with an optional belly drop tank for extra fuel. The latter was rarely carried and the centreline pylon was sometimes used to mount a single Bofors M70 135mm rocket pod. These rockets carried flares instead of warheads and were intended for warning shots.

The big Saab's service with Iceland was brief. By the summer of 1984, it was obvious that the UK Government had no intention of allowing the faltering British fishing fleet to raise tensions in the North Atlantic again. With Iceland's 200 nautical miles fishing zone an established fact, the Sleipnir fleet were returned to Sweden to become B38C Mjölnir once more.

The aircraft illustrated is Sleipnir 01 (TY-SLE) with standard Icelandic markings -- LANDHELGISGÆSLAN title and  lo-viz 'Gæslan' crest on fuselage, split flag and civil registration on the vertical tail. Camouflage patterns  varied amongst the five different Sleipnir.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on December 17, 2012, 08:48:59 AM
That is /epic/!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 17, 2012, 10:11:35 AM
Great background stories
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 17, 2012, 11:55:21 AM
Interesting backstories and design.  I take it this would be  a scaled up and stretched Draken with a Viggen exhaust?  I'm trying to visualize the best build approach in 1/72.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 17, 2012, 02:12:50 PM
OK, that is some SERIOUS coast guarding!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 17, 2012, 09:34:58 PM
Bah! Tonka-bait!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2012, 02:55:49 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: Yes, I haven't actually scaled anything but the idea was a 1/48 Draken and Viggen u/c with twin 1/72 Viggen exhaust. Being SFA-designed, I assumed that the latter would look no different for an RB.177-based RM8.

EH: Absolutely! As soon as that 1984-era  Tornado F2 had a lock on with its top-shelf Blue Circle radar, that poor Sleipnir would be toast  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on December 18, 2012, 03:16:13 AM
Very interesting birds and stories
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2012, 08:35:23 AM
Continuing with the Dewoitine evolution ...

Instituto Aerotécnico I.Ae.26 Pülü fighter prototype 1945

In November 1942, German occupation authorities began plans to clear the SNCAM Toulouse factories for production of Junkers designs for the Luftwaffe. Tooling and fixtures for the D.520 fighter were offered first to Spain (which preferred to licence Bf 109s) and then to Argentina. In late 1943, this equipment was loaded on to Spanish vessels  at Bordeau for shipment to Argentina.

The Fuerza Aérea Argentina wanted to replace its obsolete FMA Curtiss Hawk 75-0 fighters but recognized that the Dewoitine was no longer a world-class aircraft either. Thus, FMA (by then, the Instituto Aerotécnico took on the task of redesigning the D.520 for FAA service.

The resulting I.Ae.26 was modified to accommodate a German DB601A engine and MG151 20mm motor-cannon (with four wing-mounted 7.62mm Madsen machineguns. Plans shifted to a DB605A engine and three MG151 guns which were now being  built in Argentina. But Germany proved incapable of delivering either complete DB605s or tools for building these engines. After May 1945, attention turned to Italy were stocks of Fiat R.A 1050 Tifone engines were available.

The prototype I.Ae.26, combining French-made and Argentine parts, flew in December 1945. Dubbed Pülü ('wasp' in the Mapuche language), the prototype was accepted by the FAA for trials in April 1946 but no production order was forthcoming. The FAA believed that the Pülü was conceptually obsolete and requested that a turbojet-powered I.Ae.26
derivative be explored.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2012, 08:37:45 AM
Instituto Aerotécnico I.Ae.27 Kalkiñ jet fighter concept 1945-46

The I.Ae.27 was a jet fighter derivative of the I.Ae.26 designed at the Instituto Aerotécnico in 1945-46. This aircraft was to combine the wings and horizontal tailplane of the D.520/I.Ae.26 Pülü piston-engined fighter [see previous page] with a  new turbojet based on drawings of the German Heinkel-Hirth He S 011. The new design was dubbed Kalkiñ ('eagle' in the Mapuche language).

A new fuselage was devised placing the jet engine near the tail while moving the cockpit forward. As a mockup was prepared, the problems of gun gas injestion became known to the I.Ae design team. Accordingly, the side intakes were moved to the extreme nose with the intention of installing the armament on the fuselage sides. However, by  this time, it was apparent that no domestic turbojet design would be forthcoming.

The I.Ae.27 airframe was redesigned for a larger Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet. At this stage, design work was taken over by Émile Dewoitine (who arrived at Córdoba in 1946, fleeing prosecution for collaboration in France). Along with accommodating the Derwent, Dewoitine designed an all-new wing. The revised design flew as the prototype
I.Ae.27 Pulqui I but, with its new wing, the last direct connection to the D.520 series came to an end.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on December 18, 2012, 09:35:50 AM
Interesting and I love your stories
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2012, 01:37:26 PM
Cheers arc'.  No background story on this one ... I didn't even come up with a decent name. Any suggestions?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 18, 2012, 02:07:07 PM
How about "Blixten"?  It means "lightning bolt" in Swedish, I believe.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on December 18, 2012, 02:48:12 PM
the I.Ae.27 jet looks great !  I think that partial drawing with frontal intake would be the one for the Argies to use on a production aircraft -- that seems to be the way they think :)  Of course a bit more sheet-metal around that engine wouldn't go astray either ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 18, 2012, 09:29:14 PM
EH: Absolutely! As soon as that 1984-era  Tornado F2 had a lock on with its top-shelf Blue Circle radar, that poor Sleipnir would be toast  ;D

You are right. I suppose I'll just have to leave it to the Nimrods to 9Lima their arses after they've nuclear depth bombed iceland's rubber dingy collection! Mwuhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS The Argentine Dewoitine is rather nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 18, 2012, 10:36:13 PM
That Argentine Dewotine  is gorgeous! kind of looks more Italian than French in origin though, Looks like something that might have come off the Fiat line.

It also gives me a bit of inspiration for a new fighter I'm trying to cook up for my "Stealing the Stuka" story.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 19, 2012, 07:58:19 AM
The prototype I.Ae.26, combining French-made and Argentine parts, flew in December 1945.
:-* I love this one. Belated congratulations!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 19, 2012, 12:05:18 PM
Thanks folks!

Logan: I'm liking Blixten ... it fits but, also, it's just a cool looking word  :D

raafif: Agreed on the snub-nosed version for the Argies. I was aimed at a halfway house between the long-nosed original and the RW I.Ae.27 Pulqui I.

EH: "Hard a-starboard, hard a-starboard! Icelandic rubber dingy collection trying to ram!"  ;D

upnorth: Spot on! The Tifone is in a slightly modified Fiat G.55 cowling ;)  Looking forward to seeing what you cook up for a "Stealing the Stuka" fighter.

Tophe: Thanks, I enjoyed that one too. I've got a few more Dewoitine evolution ideas but they will be French scenarios.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2012, 08:28:05 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg33985#msg33985 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg33985#msg33985)
I forgot to mention in my D.520-based Pülü entry, that there was a Real World Dewoitine-related I.Ae.26. The Proyecto I.AE. 26 has a convoluted parentage. In 1944, Émile Dewoitine went to Spain with his D.550 project (a 1,300 hp D.520 derivative). Hispano Suiza built a mockup as their HS-50. When the Buchon was chosen instead, Dewoitine took a development (the D.600) to Argentina. The D.600 because the RW I.Ae.26 which was to be powered by a DB601A.

Here's an oldie to illustrate the real I.Ae.26 proposal:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 20, 2012, 08:38:59 AM
That's pretty interesting.  I like it.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 20, 2012, 08:46:49 AM
Great! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2012, 01:35:11 PM
Thanks lads. These unbuilt projects are sort of like whifs ... or that's what I tell myself  ;)

Shipboard Dewoitine D.520 Derivatives for the Aéronautique Navale

The Dewoitine D.780 (another real project) was intended to provide a modern naval fighter for PA-16 carriers, the Joffre and Painlevé. In reality, the Aéronautique Navale received only standard D.520s. But this is whifland ... so, here is  the prototype Dewoitine D.780. After its sea trials aboard the Béarn, the D.780 was transferred to Esq AC3 at BAN Cuers-Pierrefeu in SE France.

Later, AC3's D.520s and the D.780 were joined by the first 2-seater, the prototype D.782 (a whif). Intended as a light attack fighter for the Joffre, the D.782 lacked the manoeuvrability of the single-seaters. To acheive a better balance, the ventral radiator bath was to be moved to the nose. The prototype was returned to Toulouse but the conversion work had just began when France fell to the Wehrmacht.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 21, 2012, 12:44:12 AM
I like this 2-seater added to the family, thanks!
(Could you maybe make from it a training version without machine gun?)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on December 21, 2012, 03:17:06 AM
Love the naval version!!!  That two seater needs some ordnance  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 21, 2012, 01:36:24 PM
Tophe: There was no trainer version of the D.792. Perhaps you were thinking of the D.580 two-seat trainer?

The Dewoitine D.580 began as a 1939 study but, due to pressures to produced D.520s, the trainer was not built until after WWII. The production D.580, powered by a 572 hp Renault (SNECMA) 12S, served with the Escadrons d'Instruction en Vol at EPAA (École de pilotage de l'armée de l'air), BA Cognac Châteaubernard. The armed D.591 served as colonial aircraft and armaments trainers.

The pre-war D.590 avion de course followed on from the D.550 racer but was a slightly larger to accommodate more fuel. Power was a specially boosted Hispano-Suiza 12Y-61AC, producing  1800 hp at low altitude. Evaporative cooling was used. The D.590, F-ADEW, flew briefly in early 1940 before being grounded for the duration of the war.

[BTW, both the D.580 and D.590 were real projects ... but I have absolutely no idea what they woiuld have really looked like!]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 21, 2012, 01:53:27 PM
[BTW, both the D.580 and D.590 were real projects ... but I have absolutely no idea what they woiuld have really looked like!]
Do you want me to check my Trait d'Union magazines collection? Maybe they're illustrated inside.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 24, 2012, 01:19:45 PM
Do you want me to check my Trait d'Union magazines collection? Maybe they're illustrated inside.

That would be much appreciated Tophe ... I'd love to know what they actually looked like. With any luck, mine will look nothing like them  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 24, 2012, 02:52:16 PM
I have checked the index and, sorry, D.580 & D.590 are just mentionned without picture, in issues 190, 191, 192 of Trait d'Union... Maybe your drawings will be used by future historians...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 26, 2012, 11:01:29 AM
Thanks for checking Trait d'Union Tophe! If future historians use my images, I'll be persona non grata over on Secret Projects  :o

Does anyone remember the Dewoitine D.527 C1, a 1/48 resin kit whif by Pend Oreille Models (PR4835)? I was intrigued  by the concept but wondered whether they got the wing placement. Pend Oreille moved the P-51A's laminar flow wing aft on the D.520. Based on the Spiteful, I'd have thought the wing should be moved forward (can any of the
engineers confirm which is right?)

Anyway, I decided to have a whack at the D.527 myself. My version (based on a pair of D.520s by Georges Olivereau)  has the Mustang wing pushed forward. For fun, I also decided to adapt the P-51A radiator bath and retractable tail  wheel.

The second aircraft I've called the SNCAM M.521M. Here I'm imagining that Midi was not absorbed by SNCASE and that, desparate for a postwar product, the firm attempted an update of the Merlin-engined D.521. The M.521M has a Packard  V-1650-7 in a P-51D derived cowling and radiator bath matched with a P-47D bubble canopy.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 26, 2012, 11:15:15 AM
I love your new ones, both, while my favourite is the 521M :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on December 26, 2012, 11:32:55 AM
I love your new ones, both, while my favourite is the 521M :-*

My thoughts as well. Simply gorgeous!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 26, 2012, 11:40:36 AM
I'd have to view comparative details on the aircraft involved (cg location, quarter-chord line intersection with aircraft centerline, etc.) to give an intelligent answer.  As a rough quesstimation, if the new engine weighs close to what the old one did, then as long as the new wing's quarter chord line crosses the aircraft centerline at the same location that the line for the old wing did, I'd call it "good".  Now if the new engine shifts the cg, then you have to start moving things around.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on December 26, 2012, 12:58:34 PM
I like both the D.527 & M.521M :-*   The 521 fuselage looks a bit wrinkled tho - did it have a crash  ??? ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dy031101 on December 26, 2012, 01:10:55 PM
Putting that M.521M side-by-side with a P-51D and a P-40Q...... um......

It's like joining a club!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 27, 2012, 12:51:57 AM
The M.521 is nice! I love the idea of SNCAM remaining a separate entity!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 27, 2012, 09:32:05 AM
I like both the D.527 & M.521M :-*   The 521 fuselage looks a bit wrinkled tho - did it have a crash  ??? ;D

Yes, the M.521M was a rebuilt 520 with a healthy parts injection from the local USAAF scrapyard. Rejected for postwar French service, SNCAM rebuilt her once more as a test article for V tail. SNCAM referred to this conversion as the AE-EFV (l'avion expérimental - empennage en forme de V).

The AE-EFV didn't last long but donated its tailplane to a D.520 for modified for prone-pilot trials. The latter received no designation but was referred to as the AE-PCV (l'avion expérimental - pilotage couché, sur le ventre) or simply the  «baignoire».  More to come ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 27, 2012, 09:58:48 AM
Apophenia, I love your PCV model...
Just a question, as your French seems so perfect: are you a French man joking with the famous PCV letters? (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9phonie) (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9phonie)) ). In France this is very famous for phone calls paid by the receiver. I prefer your own PCV, nicer... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 27, 2012, 05:01:52 PM
Those M521 profiles are all great! Looks like a real sports car.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 30, 2012, 12:17:40 PM
Apophenia, I love your PCV model...
Just a question, as your French seems so perfect: are you a French man joking with the famous PCV letters? (see [url]http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9phonie)[/url] ([url]http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9phonie))[/url] ). In France this is very famous for phone calls paid by the receiver. I prefer your own PCV, nicer... ;)


Thanks Tophe, that's hilarious. And it's even better, in Québec, it's AFV (appel à frais virés not Armoured Fighting Vehicle)  ;D

As for my 'perfect' French, former teachers would either find that equally hilarious or just running shrieking with despair  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 01, 2013, 12:52:28 PM
The next D.520 instalment. The SNCAM M.520C was a pylon racer meant to showcase Midi at the 1946 National Air Races in Cleveland. The M.520C started well but had to retire due to ignition problems with its HS.12Z-150 engine. Hispano-Suiza promised a new powerplant based on the HS.12Z-89 for the 1947 race season but this engine never appeared.

The HM.781 ACS was a less ambitious racer meant to train French pilots for post-war Schneider Cup races. The aircraft was essentially a rebuilt D.520 airframe matched to the floats of the pre-war HD.780 (with lengthed pylons containing coolant radiators). Alas, the Coupe Schneider was not resumed and no dedicated French racing seaplane was designed. The unmarked HM.781 was transferred to the Aéronavale. It was to be rebuilt with a bubble canopy but was badly damaged in a heavy landing before that could occur.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 01, 2013, 02:25:05 PM
Those are gorgeous apophenia!  I think they're my favorites of the recent French birds.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 01, 2013, 06:39:42 PM
Beautiful addition!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 03, 2013, 06:37:09 PM
Now that M.520C racer is pure WHIFF porn!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 05, 2013, 09:50:02 AM
Thanks folks. The following are likely the last of my belaboured Dewoitine musings ...

After proving the prone-pilot concept, the AE-PCV testbed (see post #701) was rebuilt as the M.520TP (Turbo-Propulseur) to flight test the new SNECMA-Rateau TB.1000 turboprop engine. The goal was to demonstrate the main powerplant installation for a proposed SNCAM 'Propulsion Mixte' attack aircraft to Aéronavale's 1947 specification. This  M.900PM (intended for new PA28 carriers) would have a nose-nosed TB.1000 producing 1450 shp for take-off plus 570  lbs of thrust. This was boosted by a tail-mounted Atar R.102 Hestia turbojet producing another 2,500 lbs of thrust.

The M.900PM's turboprop installation was a complete success but the TB.1000 engine proved capable of only 1240 shp (+550 lb.st) and as little as 940 shp (+ 190 lb.st) at cruising speed. While there was hope for performance improvements from the TB.1000 turboprop, SNECMA elected to concentrate on its larger Atar R.101 turbojet and to stop further development of the R.102 Hestia. That brought the planned M.900PM to a halt, Aéronavale choosing rival designs from Breguet and Nord-Aviation instead.

In the meantime. SNCAM had developed a straightforward turbojet derivative of the D.520 incorporating the AE-PCV prone-pilot position. The M.780 was intended as a simple, rough-field attack aircraft. D.520 wings were retained as was the tail arrangement from the M.521V. Power was to be provided by a single Atar R.100 an improved SNECMA variant of the wartime BMW 003 turbojet. The M.780 did not especially interest the AdlA -- the armament choice of  four smaller Matra MG 151 20mm cannons being one cause for concern. But it was a moot point since SNECMA would  soon cancel its R.100 to focus on Atar R.101 development.

For those keeping record, the SNECMA-Rateau TB.1000 turboprop was real (although it was eclipsed by the AS Mamba) as was the contest for a new attack aircraft for PA28 carriers. The latter led to the Breguet Br.960 Vultur prototypes (which, although unsuccessful, inspired the ASW Alizé). Other than the Atar 101, the turbojets are pure whif -- SNECMA's work sprang from the BMW 003 but, AFAIK, they had no intention of actually producing the German type. The 'R.102 Hestia' was, of course, inspired by the later RW Atar R.105 Vesta, a reduced-scale Atar 101.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 14, 2013, 09:22:29 AM
I've been playing with an AltHist notion where Airbus Industrie aligns itself with elements  of the Russian/CIS aircraft industry in the early-mid '90s. The result was Airbus Rus.

The first products from the Airbus Rus consortium were traded-in A300s and A310s rebuilt to  suit Russian operating conditions. This led to the A300R and A310R models fitted with
Lotarev/Ivchenko-Progress D-18T engines.

Work on domestic aircraft began with the westernization of Ilyushin Il-76 military transports. For the civilian cargo market, Airbus Rus concentrated on adapting the Il-76 airframe to twin high-bypass turbofan engines. The object was greater fuel efficiency and simplified maintenance. Prototype testbeds were designated AR76x.

For the western market, the powerplants would be GE CF6-45s and '50s or P&W JT9D-7Rs (initially 'recycled' from the A300R/A310R conversion program). For the domestic Russian
and CIS markets, the powerplant would be D-18T (shown here).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on January 15, 2013, 01:09:56 AM
Love it!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 15, 2013, 02:39:56 AM
Interesting concept.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 15, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
Looks a bit like a Kawasaki C-1 on steroids.

Cool stuff! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 15, 2013, 08:13:51 AM
makes you wonder about a similar update to C-141B's with two of the same engines going into the C-5M.  Mind you, I had considered an upgraded C-141B using 4XCFM56 engines and with a mod forward of the refueling receptacle to add a probe allowing use of any tanker aircraft out there.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 15, 2013, 05:57:25 PM
makes you wonder about a similar update to C-141B's with two of the same engines going into the C-5M.  Mind you, I had considered an upgraded C-141B using 4XCFM56 engines and with a mod forward of the refueling receptacle to add a probe allowing use of any tanker aircraft out there.

Good suggestion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2013, 06:34:43 AM
Thanks folks. More to come from Airbus Rus ...  ;)

... I had considered an upgraded C-141B using 4XCFM56 engines and with a mod forward of the refueling receptacle to add a probe allowing use of any tanker aircraft out there.

The USAF does seem to be unwaveringly hostile to anything but flying booms. Maybe this probed aircraft belongs to US SOFCOM?  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2013, 11:11:04 AM
More on the Airbus Rus scenario ...

The first 'new build' AR760 series airlifter was the AR765 Atlas which which grafted the FBW cockpit of the Airbus A310 onto the AR760 fuselage. The opportunity was also taken to reduce flightcrew to two (+ loadmasters) and slightly lengthen the cargo hold.

The AR765 Atlas was aimed at both the western markets -- both military and civilian heavy lift cargo carriers. The prototype (RA-765001) was flown with GE CF6-50 engines. But, prior to this, the cockpit arrangement had been tested on a Il-76TD 'mule', the AR76x-04A (inset).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 17, 2013, 07:13:43 PM
That's looking awesome!

I always thought the Il-76 glass nose was anachronistic, this is definitely a good fix for that.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on January 18, 2013, 12:25:09 AM
Soooo cool!  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2013, 06:06:10 AM
Thanks folks!

I always thought the Il-76 glass nose was anachronistic, this is definitely a good fix for that.

Cheers 'north. Apparently the RW Il-476 for the RuAF still has a five-man flight deck! In really rough-field conditions, that lower glazing can be practical (I recall a video of a leased Il-76 -- supplying Cap Nord in Greenland -- where the nav is talking the pilots down to ground level. The view from the nav station was astonishing).

But, that glass nose "ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow" in the West. So, in goes the Airbus glass cockpit. I'm imagining unassembled A310 nose frames and skins being shipped from Aerospatiale Matra's Méaulte plant to Aviastar Ulyanovsk (or maybe initially Tashkent). There, the nose from front bulkhead to cockpit rear would be assembled with a new aft-of-cockpit section ultimately conforming to the size and shape of the Il-76 fuselage.

More to come on Airbus Rus ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 19, 2013, 01:03:14 AM
Thanks folks. The following are likely the last of my belaboured Dewoitine musings ...
M.520TP
M.780
Belated congratulations. The notify tool failed to wake me up and come seeing and clapping my hands... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 19, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
More on the Airbus Rus scenario ...

Airbus found several export customers for militarized versions of the AR765 Atlas. But a dedicated 'Atlas M' had also been planned specifically for military users. This variant was closer in origin to the original IL-76 concept being a four-engined airlifter with a rough field capability (albeit now with Western systems and CFM56 engines).

The first order for the Atlas M came from Canada. This was a temporary lease arrangement for four AR764 models. These were AR764 models converted from used IL-76TDs. Designated CC-176A Alquonquins by the Canadian Forces, these tanker transports equipped 435 Squadron based at CFB Edmonton.

Canada's leased AR764s were phased out as new-build AR768s arrived. These were designated CC-176B and equipped both 435 Sqn in Edmonton (as dedicated strategic transports) and 402 Sqn in Winnipeg (and tanker-transports).

The first air force to order the AR768 was the RAAF (which had a chance at a close-up look at the CC-176A during the INTERFET deployment to East Timor). Australian orders were placed for six AR768s in 2002. By Nov 2004, the first AR768 Paipans (Ibis) were re-equipping No 35  Squadron.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 19, 2013, 12:43:57 PM
Not too far from your Modest Proposal many years ago.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 19, 2013, 02:59:22 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on January 19, 2013, 06:07:00 PM
SNCAM M.520TP  8) :-*   and SNCAM (Midi) M.780  8) :-*
Those would be sweet in styrene parked on flightline.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on January 19, 2013, 07:22:51 PM
Plentiful of great ideas
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 19, 2013, 07:29:44 PM
Great idea with the Atlas!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Doom! on January 20, 2013, 01:22:33 AM
You have sure been putting out a lot of great stuff lately, I too am amazed at what a difference getting rid of all that glass up front made. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2013, 01:32:58 PM
Thanks folks!

A part of the Airbus Rus agreement was that Airbus Industrie would assist its Russian partners in developing a replacement for the RuAF An-12 tactical transport fleet. The AR800
series emerged as a scaled-down AR760 using many of the components of the AR765 Atlas.

It had been planned that the RuAF service variant would be the base AR800 but the intended Aviadvigatel PD-14 powerplants had fallen seriously behind schedule. Instead, the AR80x prototype was fitted with larger (but similar output) Aviadvigatel PD-90A turbofans, resulting in the AR801.

The civilian AR810 was similar to the AR801 but fitted with Western equipment and CFM56 engines. Athough not expecting a large market for a civilian version, Airbus Rus found no
takers for the AR810 at all. That was, in part, because this model had been eclipsed.

Amongst the AR800 series' inherited AR760 partswas the undercarriage (albeit now reduced to twin main gears each with four tires). That rather complex landing gear arrangement did not appeal to potential Western users of a tactical transport. A re-design was required to break into the emerging Hercules/Transall replacement market.

The AR80x prototype was stripped of its main gear and rebuilt with a multi-legged gear supplied by the Safran Group. This undercarriage was identical to the Transall C160NG units by Messier-Dowty (but with three pairs rather than two). The result was the A820 Altai.

The first customer for this new CFM56-powered variant was France. In the Armée de l'air, the AR820F Armagnac serves with only two escadrons de transport, these being ET 2/61 Franche-Comté (at BA 123 Orléans-Bricy) and 2/64 Anjou (at BA 105 Évreux-Fauville).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 22, 2013, 02:15:41 PM
Very nice.

That seriously looks like some relative of the Kawasaki C-1 transport.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 26, 2013, 05:10:03 AM
Thanks 'north. That's what I was going for ... taking some Ilyushin bits and hopefully ending up half way between the Kawasaki and Embraer's KC-390.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Slerski on January 28, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
Is it possible to have some for the French Air Force ?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2013, 11:33:43 AM
Mais oui, certainement! But we wouldn't want to force Airbus Military into any unseemly haste with the A400M, would we?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on February 03, 2013, 11:24:17 AM
Thanks lads. These unbuilt projects are sort of like whifs ... or that's what I tell myself  ;)

Shipboard Dewoitine D.520 Derivatives for the Aéronautique Navale

The Dewoitine D.780 (another real project) was intended to provide a modern naval fighter for PA-16 carriers, the Joffre and Painlevé. In reality, the Aéronautique Navale received only standard D.520s. But this is whifland ... so, here is  the prototype Dewoitine D.780. After its sea trials aboard the Béarn, the D.780 was transferred to Esq AC3 at BAN Cuers-Pierrefeu in SE France.

Later, AC3's D.520s and the D.780 were joined by the first 2-seater, the prototype D.782 (a whif). Intended as a light attack fighter for the Joffre, the D.782 lacked the manoeuvrability of the single-seaters. To acheive a better balance, the ventral radiator bath was to be moved to the nose. The prototype was returned to Toulouse but the
conversion work had just began when France fell to the Wehrmacht.

Wow what a fantastic and detailed profiling work Apophenia!
I am completely and utterly impressed by your detail in the wing-folding effort!!

M.A.D   
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 04, 2013, 08:07:35 AM
Cheers! That wing-fold mechanism was actually stolen off an obliging Avenger. Truth be told, I'm not quite sure how you'd arrange the folding of a single-spar wing like the Dewoitine  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on February 04, 2013, 09:36:55 AM
Cheers! That wing-fold mechanism was actually stolen off an obliging Avenger. Truth be told, I'm not quite sure how you'd arrange the folding of a single-spar wing like the Dewoitine  :o
Something like that of the Avenger would be the most probable, with some interesting fittings and structure at the folding joint.  I suspect, though, that there'll be some interesting locking mechanisms there to prevent problems.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 28, 2013, 10:24:52 AM
Hello folks, it's been quite a while ...

I'm going to ease back in with another Airbus Rus offering. This time, the AR769 Atlas Airfreighter bought by Air Canada Cargo to replace DC-8-73(F)s. The Atlas Airfreighter introduced a swing-nose allowing cargo carriers to unload pallets and containers rapidly at airports. Most carriers opted for the twin CF6 AR770 Atlas Airfreighter but Air Canada chose to retain the four engines of the Atlas M.

Other than minor electronics changes, deletion of some military equipment, and the use of CFM56-5A5 turbofans (as per ordered A319s), the Air Canada AR269 Atlas Airfreighter was almost identical to the Canadian Forces' CC-176A Alquonquin (AR768) strategic airlifter.  This simplified R&O which Air Canada was contracted to perform for the CF.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg36672#msg36672 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg36672#msg36672)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 28, 2013, 11:21:49 AM
Pleasant and useful while...

The Atlas Airfreighter introduced a swing-nose allowing cargo carriers to unload pallets and containers rapidly at airports.
this swing nose avoids the need for a twin-boom layout alas... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on March 28, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
That looks awesome!! First thing I've seen to look good in the overall white+green tail+leaf AC scheme!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 28, 2013, 09:43:45 PM
Good to see you back in the profiling game!

Nice machine to make a comeback with too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on March 28, 2013, 09:52:24 PM
Outstanding.......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 30, 2013, 12:05:24 PM
Thanks folks! Now, spinning off from Greg's 'The Death or Glory Boys' storyline:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2852.msg42147#msg42147 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2852.msg42147#msg42147)

The urgency with with the Me 163K was produced allowed Klemm little opportunity to refine the  design. An ongoing concern was diminishing rudder control while on approach to hook the ship's 'Fangleine' cable. To address this problem, Me 163K V47 was fitted with a twin V tail  to increase rudder effectiveness.

Trials with V47 were successful but neither the Luftwaffe nor the Kriegsmarine was willing to see Katapultjäger production  interrupted to introduce the new tail on the assembly line. Instead, Klemm began studying variations on the then-current Katapultjäger approach.

Two projects dovetailed. The first was tentative exploration of the use of near-vertical take-off ramps for the Me 163K. This more compact arrangement would mean that a greater
variety of merchant ships could be adapted as Katapultschiff für Raketenjäger.

The exploration of near-vertical take-off ramps led directly to an October 1944 proposal for a semi-disposable rocket fighter to rival Erich Bachem's BP-20 concept. Unlike 'Projekt
Natter
', the Klemm raketenjäger was to be based at sea in the flightpath of Allied bombers.  Launched from anchored barges (or flak ships), the so-called 'hlojäger' would attack the Terror Flieger with podded R4M rocket projectiles.

Acknowledging the difficulties encountered with hooked landings by relatively experienced  Katapultjäger pilots, Klemm abandoned hooks for the 'hlojäger'. Instead, the semi-trained pilot would jettison the main body of the fighter (for recovery by parachute) before exiting his prone-position armoured cockpit capsule to hit the silk. The Technisches Amt der Luftwaffe saw the benefits of basing rocket interceptors at sea but Klemm's Me 163-based 'hlojäger' was judged too expensive in both time and materials to be considered semi-disposable.

Undeterred, Klemm design staff turned their attention back to improving their Katapultjäger. For this new approach, the hlojäger's prone pilot position was retained but a smoothly aerodynamic perspex nose cap replaced the earlier concept's faceted panzerglas. The goal was  to reduce the Katapultjäger's frontal area, reduce the strain on pilots during violent launch and recovery, while providing pilots with a clear view of the Fangleine while attempting to 'hook on'. This Katapultjäger development the Technisches Amt approved of.

Klemm received instructions to transition production from the Me 163K-2 to their revised design which was to be designated the Kl 151B (in an attempt to convice Allied intelligence
that Klemm was reviving an earlier light touring aircraft concept). With  Me 163K V47 being considered an aerodynamic prototype, the first true Neue Katapultjäger was a pre-production Kl 151B-0. Unfortunately for the Katapultflieger, only a handful of Kl 151B-0s were delivered  before the Klemm factory was destroyed by Allied bombing. Full production Kl 151B-1s featured additional armament options and lengthed ventral fins but all were destroyed on the line.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on March 30, 2013, 12:19:26 PM
Really liking these Komets on cats man!!!  Seeing as how the underside is already sort of boat hull shaped, how about a sculpting it completely and having them simply make water landings and then get craned aboard ship?  I know unpowered water landings aren't the safest but they sound like they might be a better option then the hook.  Just my $0.02  Looking forward to more Komets  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 30, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
Thanks Cliffy. I was wondering about water landings too but Greg reckoned that the impact of touch-down would likely detonate any remaining rocket fuel. I wonder what, if any, effect sea water would have on remaining T-stoff (or C-stoff)?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on March 30, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
Really liking these Komets on cats man!!!  Seeing as how the underside is already sort of boat hull shaped, how about a sculpting it completely and having them simply make water landings and then get craned aboard ship?  I know unpowered water landings aren't the safest but they sound like they might be a better option then the hook.  Just my $0.02  Looking forward to more Komets  8)

Most anything can function better when its built with pixals or styrene.  Its when you build 1/1 scale in metal (etc) that problems are most difficult to fix.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 30, 2013, 02:32:59 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 01, 2013, 06:33:27 AM
Great work....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 08, 2013, 12:24:15 PM
In August 1940, a purchasing commission from Finland made its way to Paris to try to acquire aircraft for the Ilmavoimat. This group was unsuccessful in convincing the Germans to deliver the Potez 633s and Koolhoven FK.58s promised to Finland by the French government. However, they were able to gather airframe spares for Ilmavoimat MS.406 fighters from storage at a Centre de réception des avions de série. This CRAS also held a surprise for the Finns.

Also in storage were 40 nearly complete Arsenal VG.33 fighters. The Luftwaffe had no interest in these wooden fighters and the Germans were happy to be rid of the airframes. Disassembled and packed onto Swedish freighters (at German insistance), the Arsenal fighters were shipped to Turku. By Oct 1940, these airframes (as well as some VG.33 airframes components collected from the CAMS plant at Sartrouville) had arrived at the VL plant at Tampere.

VL reassembled the four most complete Arsenal fighters with the available Hispano-Suiza 12Y-31 engines. These aircraft were designated D.33h by VL and dubbed Tuulihaukka (Kestrel). Under the Ilmavoimat coding system, these machines were the ALh. All D.33h had French armament consisting of four 7.5 mm wing guns and a 20mm HS.404 moteur-canon.

No further French engines could be gleaned but VL had secured stocks of Czech-made Avia 12Ydr motors. A further 16 fighters were finished as Avia-engined D.33a Tuulihaukka. These aircraft had 7.7 mm Browning wing guns and a single 12.7mm Browning firing through the hollow propeller shaft. All D.33h Tuulihaukka were eventually modified to D.33a standard (to free up French engines and armament for MS.406 spares).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 08, 2013, 12:29:23 PM
Those are rather tasty.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 08, 2013, 12:39:09 PM
Cheer 'north  :D  Here's another pair ...

The Ilmavoimat were thrilled with the performance of its Tuulihaukka. The D.33 was faster than the MS.406 and manoeuvrable to boot. The D.33a model was rather weak on armament however. And all Arsenal fighters had limited ground clearance for their propellers (dating back to their light fighter origins). There was also the problem of sourcing suitable engines for continued Tuulihaukka 'production' at VL.

(Top: D.33a AL-19 carried a rare example of pin-up art on an Ilmavoimat aircraft. Pariisilainen (La Parisienne) was a common nickname for the little fighter from Sartrouville.)

In 1942, a solution for the engine shortage came from German 'war booty' stocks. A supply of Soviet Klimov M-105Ps were purchased from Germany, leading to to the D.33v (for 'venäläinen' or 'Russian'). This model substituted a Soviet 12.7mm Berezin UB machinegun for the engine-mounted Browning.

(Bottom: D.33v AL-14, a re-engined D.33a, is covered in temporary winter white paint. The ground crew have partly restored its fuselage code number and personal markings -- 'Kiroileva Kissa' (the 'Cursing Cat') -- a reference to its tempermental Soviet engine.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 08, 2013, 12:48:48 PM
Beautiful d.33 variants, all of them, and all of them very plausible.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 08, 2013, 05:32:28 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 09, 2013, 03:45:08 AM
I like that!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 09, 2013, 04:31:28 AM
So very cool....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2013, 07:29:31 AM
Thanks folks!

In its on-going search for suitable engines for the Arsenal fighter, VL naturally turned to Germany. The Daimler-Benz 601A was the most desirable engine type but in heavy demand. But, in 1942, production of the Bf 110C was winding down and stocks of DB601B might become available.

As it happens VL had access to a Bf 110C-4 of 1.(Z)/JG 77. This battle-damaged aircraft had left Rovaniemi to make its way south to the Reich for repair. Alas, this Bf 110 suffered a
starboard undercarriage collapse while landing at Tampere for refuelling. With Luftwaffe permission, it was decided to fit the Bf 110's port engine to a D.33 airframe in a trial
installation.

VL's D.33 test mule, AL-2 was chosen for the job. Thus far, AL-2 had been through each of VL's Tuulihaukka incarnations. The aircraft's reputation hit a low point when fitted with a particularly tempermental M-105P (earning it the unflattering nickname of 'Makki').

VL D.33d 'Mersuhaukka' ('Mercedes Hawk')

With its ailing Klimov removed, AL-2's firewall was modified to take the engine mounts from the Messerschmitt. Engine installation proceeded very smoothly and it was found that the Bf 110 cowling fit the airframe almost without modification. The result was the sole D.33d (top).

Trials with the new 'Mersuhaukka' went well but also highlighted weak points in the adaptation. Weight had to be added in the rear fuselage to balance the new engine installation. But, critically, previously-marginal ground clearance for the propeller had now become almost non-existant. Clearly this was not acceptable for a fighter intended to operate from rough, forward airfields.

Predictably, while taxiing on soft ground at Tampere, the  D.33d's prop tips clipped the turf and the fighter nosed in. With its DB 601B and engine mounts damaged, firewall broken, and forward fuselage damaged by the resulting fire, AL-2's days as a much-abused testbed were over.

Uuden Hävittäjän Projekti - the VL D.42w (Wasp-moottori) Concept

The UHP (New Fighter Project) was a study programme to develop an indigenous replacement fighter for the VL-built Fokker D.XXI. Work was well underway on Arvo Ylinen's Myrsky project but VL wanted a back-up scheme. One possibility was a radial-engined D.33 development utilizing stocks of existing Arsenal components.

The 'Mersuhaukka' had shown the dangers on reduced ground clearance but the D.33d's remains also suggested a fix. A team under Torsti Verkkola had previously studied the possibility of attaching an Arsenal wing to the Fokker D.XXI airframe. Why not apply the same concept to the D.33 itself? Accordingly, the fire-damaged section of the D.33d airframe was removed and a new, welded steel-tube fuselage section added.

The new fuselage section widened the fuselage to accomodate a P&W Twin Wasp (from German war booty stocks or Svenska Flygmotor STWC-3). More importantly, the frames presented a lowered mounting point for the Arsenal wing, thereby 'lengthening' the undercarriage. The remains of D.33d thus formed a rough mockup of the proposed D.42w which was presented to the Ilmavoimat technical staff. However, the Ilmavoimat saw no compelling reason to deviate from the Myrsky.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 09, 2013, 08:45:38 AM
AWESOME JOB!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2013, 10:14:27 AM
Cheers Jorel! You may have notice your influence on 'Pariisilainen' in Reply #750  ;D

Uuden Hävittäjän Projekti - the Daimler-Benz powered Tuulihaukka Derivatives


VL D.42d 'Mersuhaukka II' Concept

Another project under UHP was a refinement of the Arsenal airframe to better suit the German Daimler-Benz engine. Responding to the fate of the D.33d demonstrator, an entirely new undercarriage was adopted. This was the Italian Magnaghi system from the Ilmavoimat's Fiat G.50 'Fiiu' fighter. Also inspired by the Fiat was a new, steel-tube wing centre section (to whichwould be attached outer panels consisting of roughly the outer two-thirds of the original VG.33's wooden wing - increasing span to 13 m).

The new centre section attached to a lengthened Tuulihaukka fuselage. A DB 601E (or DB 605A) engine was to be installed in an almost unchanged Bf 109 cowling. The longer fuselage left space for an optional MG 151/20 motor-kanone as well as cowl-mounted 12.7 mm LKk/42 VKT machine guns (Browning M2 copies).

The new outer wing panels allowed fixed armament to be fitted inboard compared to the guns' original mounting points. This also meant more relative space between the spars allowing internally wing-mounted LKK/42 machine guns or MG 151/20. A light bomb rack could be fitted behind the retracted main wheels (since the D.33's central radiator had been replaced by twin Bf 109-style radiator baths outboard on either side of the centre section).

Ilvamoimat inspectors were very impressed with the D.42d concept but found it a somewhat over-elaborate development. It seemed to these officials that a simpler solution could be found by combining the features of the radial-engined D.42w and Daimler-powered D.42d.


The D.43d Haukka III

The D.43d was effectively a DB 605A-powered development of VL's stillborn D.42w concept. The basic Tuulihaukka fuselage and wing remained largely unchanged but the forward fuselage was now made up of welded steel tubes. The lowered wing gave the 3 metre diameter VDM 9 propeller the ground clearance it required.

A minor difference in the D.43d airframe was an enlarged vertical tailplane of simplified shape. The radiator was also enlarged and moved aft. This was to help restore balance (aided by some rearrangement of internal equipment). With all these changes, the Ilmavoimat redubbed the aircraft Haukka (Hawk) to differentiate the D.43d from earlier D.33 types still in service.

Haukka armament was to consist of twin LKk/42 machine guns. Optionally, a motor-kanone could be fitted as could four rifle-calibre wing guns. In the event, most D.43d were delivered to tactical recce units and mounted only the twin cowl guns. Those Haukka that did reach fighter units tended to have a third, engine-mounted LKk/42 although a few did receive the rarer MG 151/20 cannon.

'Justiina' (bottom) is a typical tactical recce D.43d Haukka. Note that, although the Ilmavoimat has applied a new 'HA' type code, the numerical sequence carries on from the D.33 types.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 09, 2013, 10:45:04 AM
 :-* Beautiful silhouettes! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 09, 2013, 10:25:36 PM
:-* Beautiful silhouettes! :-*
Indeed and a comment about the Myrski you mentioned. Had the Finnd had access to modern foreign designs as the VG.33 the Myrski (which was a very poor design) would either not be started or dropped as soon as the weakness of the design was obvious
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 09, 2013, 11:56:39 PM
"Cheers Jorel! You may have notice your influence on 'Pariisilainen' in Reply #750"
I did notice that...... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on April 10, 2013, 02:18:58 AM
Very Good. I always liked the Arsenal fighter
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 10, 2013, 12:51:26 PM
VL Arsenals in Foreign Markings

At least three VL-built Arsenal fighters flew in foreign markings.

Due to persistant engine troubles, several D.33v Tuulihaukka had to abandoned in Karelia during the retreat of 1944. Two of these aircraft were repaired by VVS ground crews and issued to the 20 IAP where they flew alongside the unit's Yak-9s west of Murmansk. Intended for use as hacks, the two captured Tuulihaukka actually saw combat.

Both VVS D.33v were used to lead an attack on the Finnish airfield at Petsamo. The Soviets were counting on these fighters being mistaken for returning Ilmavoimat aircraft. That proved true but the following Yaks took heavy ground fire from Finnish and German anti-aircraft batteries.

Aircraft No.2 (top) had been daubbed with the slogan "For Soviet Karelia!".

One D.43d was sent to Rechlin for testing by the Luftwaffe. German interest was primarily in the Haukka's wooden construction. The fighter arrived at Rechlin in August 1944 and was stripped of its underwing 20mm cannon 'kanootti'. Limited testing was undertaken before Finland agreed to the Sept 1944 armistice with the Soviet Union. With no chance for a supply of spares, the Haukka  was stripped of its German equipment and scrapped in November 1944.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on April 10, 2013, 01:25:17 PM
Beautiful made, those VL arsenal's  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on April 10, 2013, 09:10:43 PM
This recent bunch of Ilmavoimat aircraft has been great!

If you don't mind a minor nitpick, though? The slogan on the Russian one should have 'za', not 'dlya'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 10, 2013, 09:28:22 PM
Wow, they look great....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2013, 03:57:18 AM
If you don't mind a minor nitpick, though? The slogan on the Russian one should have 'za', not 'dlya'.

Nitpick much appreciated Litvyak! I've corrected the image now. That's what I get for trusting Google Translate  :P

I decided to go back to Prompt for Russian translations but, weirdly, they gave me Для советской Карелии as well. But, put in 'For' by itelf and you get:  для, для того, чтобы, and, finally, за ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2013, 04:00:53 AM
Over in the 'Counter Insurgency Aircraft' thread on Ideas & Inspiration, there was some discussion of the single-seat Super Tucano.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2875.msg43586#msg43586 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2875.msg43586#msg43586)

Here's my quickie take on the 'A-29' (based on a handy FAB image of an A-29B on Wikipedia)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
Now blank off the rear completely.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2013, 04:38:18 AM
Will do, Chief!  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2013, 05:59:49 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on April 11, 2013, 07:08:02 AM
somehow the blanked-off rear canopy doesn't look right to me - all too tall .....

now if you made it a single cockpit with a new much lower canopy & sent it pylon racing ;)  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 11, 2013, 12:56:13 PM
I have to agree with raafif here; the blanked off rear canopy just isn't working on the Tucano. It works on some planes, just not in this case.

I think blanking off the rear section of the canopy shouldn't really be required and would actually limit the flexibility of the airframe a bit.

Keeping a common canopy would reduce changes between trainer and combat capable variants. It would also make it easier to switch an airframe from one to the other role, presuming the combat mission specific gear could be packed into a modular package fitted to the rear cockpit that could be easily removed and leave the basic rear cockpit structures intact enough that it could be fitted to a trainer standard with relative ease and speed if need be.

Keeping a common canopy should also retain the same pilot visibility between variants so it could save the pilot the trouble of having to get used to any differences between the variants.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 11, 2013, 01:08:01 PM
Palletize the mission specific gear so that it can be slid into the rear cockpit using the ejection seat tracks.  That way you keep maximum commonality and adaptability.  For certain B-2 missions, there's a similarly palletized kit that uses the third seat ejection seat rails.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 11, 2013, 11:32:57 PM
I love the new silhouette of the one with coloured rear canopy. I don't care about the pilot or his military work. Thanks to have enriched the family, even if no user would buy this one... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 13, 2013, 04:34:26 AM
Thanks folks. Agreed on the rear decking ... I too prefer the glazed rear panel (although there wouldn't be much of a rear view, I don't think).

The 'solid' panel is more in line with other tandem twin converted to single-seaters like the MB-326K. For either canopy, I'm imagining the original Super Tucano cockpit opening remaining unchanged. The shape of the fairing behind the original canopy would have to be changed however.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 15, 2013, 11:52:15 AM
I've been musing on Messerschmitt/Mustang hybrids. No back-story or rationale (hence the lack of colour schemes) ... just wondering what they'd be like.

My first thought was a testbed based on captured P-51 components. Top, a Bf-109G rebuilt with a  P-51B radiator bath to see if it provided any performance benefits over the Messerschmitt's usual twin wing radiators. Bottom, the same airframe after being stretched to accommodate the  Mustang's laminar-flow wing.

I'd imagine that the first limitation encountered would be inadequate ground clearance for the DB605's propeller. And, of course, the Mustang wing only maintained laminar-flow when in ideal condition. So, more work was required at Messerschmitt AG to make this combo worth production.

I've called the production Messerschmitt/Mustang hybrid an Me-209 (III) to camouflage the development of yet another '109 evolution from the Luftwaffe's Technische Amt. This third  incarnation of the Me-209 employed the Me-410's larger DB603A engine. The Me-209 is employed as a pure fighter intended to combat enemy escorts to free Bf-109s and Fw-190s to attack the unattended bomber streams.

Compared with the base Bf-109G, the forward fuselage is longer which allows 20mm cannon cowl guns in place of machineguns. The larger cowl guns were, in part, possible because of the raised cockpit position (using an Me-262 canopy). Wing armament is restricted to one gun per side - due to longer undercarriage legs than the P-51. These undercarriage legs are based on Fw-190 components.

The initial production Me-209A-1 made use of DB603A engines surplus from diminished Me-410 production. Since these engines lack motor-kanone, armament is restricted to four 20mm guns. Later variants added an MG151, MK 103, or MK 108 motor-kanon.

BTW, the Bf-109G started off as a great blank by Simon Schatz. The Me-262 canopy I borrowed from Teodor Liviu Morosanu's Avia S.92.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 15, 2013, 12:07:21 PM
VERY interesting, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 15, 2013, 12:31:46 PM
I'll take 12 of each, thank you very much.  They already did that, though...

(http://www.submiturpics.com/images/ipkad897skcwa711eg1.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on April 15, 2013, 09:10:10 PM
Wow!  :icon_surprised: Sooooo good!  :-*  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 15, 2013, 10:42:29 PM
Very cool.......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 22, 2013, 07:04:26 AM
Thanks folks! Decided to 'colourize' the Me 209 (III) after all ...

Yellow 4 was a  Me 209A-2/R1 flown by Lt Gottfried Dietze. When 7/JG.26 moved to the Luftüberlegenheit role,  this unit converted from Fw 190D-9s to Me 209As. Ironically, Dietze was killed by strafing P-51Ds while attempting to scramble in Yellow 4 at Schwerin-Sülte airfield in late March 1945.

The personal marking is of Frau Gode, mistress of the Wild Hunt. Also known as the Boar Hound Goddess or Grimhild, the witch/sorceress, Frau Gode rode with hounds to spear the wild boar.

Black 2 was a Me 209A-4/U1(N) of I/NJG 11 flown by Fw H. Rauchensteiner in early April 1945. This unit, flying from Darmstadt-Biblis, specialized in anti-Mosquito patrols -- hence the  fuselage-top FuG 350 Naxos Z installation used to detect H2S radar emissions from the target-marking Mosquitos of 5 and 8 Groups.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 22, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
Has quite a Me309 look.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 23, 2013, 02:17:21 AM
Has quite a Me309 look.

Concur and I bet it's not long before someone kitbashes one of these!

Nice work, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 23, 2013, 05:46:22 AM
WOW!!! nice.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 23, 2013, 01:07:09 PM
Has quite a Me309 look.

I was hoping it would  ;)  Here's another pair ...

Yellow 1 is a five-gunned Me 209A-1/R2 of 11/JG.53 flown by Lt Günther Landt from Kirrlach, Karlsruhe in March 1945.

'Hanna' is a brand new Me 209B-1 flown by the Gruppe Technischer Offizier (TO) of (Stab) II./JG6 from Fürth in northern Bavaria. This aircraft was destroyed on the ground on May Day, 1945.

Note the revised radiator arrangement for the Me 209B (incorporating the engine oil cooler as well as radiator). The handful of 'B series aircraft built also had relocated antenna masts for their FuG 16 ZY VHF transceivers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on April 23, 2013, 02:19:21 PM
Top!! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 23, 2013, 06:12:50 PM
Dear Apophenia, your inventive Messerschmitts are very beautiful, while... in several countries, we are not allowed to clap our hands for a swastika-wearing warbird... :(
But as a silhouette, I feel free to enjoy it, very inspiring! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dy031101 on April 24, 2013, 12:07:48 AM
The Naxos Z looks...... R2D2-ish.  Neat.   :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 24, 2013, 09:06:40 AM
Very cool looking 209´s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 24, 2013, 11:47:17 PM
Very cool......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2013, 10:27:41 AM
... in several countries, we are not allowed to clap our hands for a swastika-wearing warbird... :(
But as a silhouette, I feel free to enjoy it, very inspiring! :-*

Thanks Tophe, the Me 209 fits right in. But here's a pair with a nary a swastika to be seen ... ;)

Czechoslovak Messerschmitt Me 209s

In March 1945, Skoda-Kauba Flugzeugbau was assigned production of the Me 209 to allow Messerschmitt to focus on the Me 262. Me 209 components were shipped to both Skoda-Kauba in Prague and the Otrokovice plant SE Moravia (the latter with the goal of creating a wooden Me 209 derivative). Neither program reached fruition before the fall of the Third Reich.

After the war, the Skoda plant gathered all Me 209 components in Czechoslovakia in an attempt to produce a fighter for the Czechoslovak Air Force. The difficulty for Skoda was lack of access to DB 603A engines for their fighter. The only suitable engine was the Jumo 211A and Skoda was forced to adapt the cowling from the competing Bf 109-based Avia S-199.

The CzAF tested one Skoda Sk.209 but had no intention of procuring the aircraft. Instead, this was a front for the transfer of all completed Sk.209's to the new state of Israel. Twelve Sk.209s were ordered but only nine (including Skoda's prototype) could be delivered (all in early June 1948).

In Israel, the Sk.209 'Kherev' (חרב 'Sword') fighters were issued to the Kheil HaAvir's new 101 Squadron where they would fly alongside Avia S.199s. Only three Kherev survived the 1948 war with a rather battered looking Dalet-227 (227-ד) being the only flying example. Fittingly, 101 Squadron's Kherev were replaced by Mustangs.   ;)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 28, 2013, 12:18:06 PM
I clap my hands loudly for the Ceskoslovak Me-209-II... :-*
Thanks! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on April 28, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
I like the DB nose on most things...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 28, 2013, 05:46:22 PM
Those Czech 209s really look the business.

Too bad it was unsuccessfully pitched to the Czechoslovak air force. I'd love to have seen some in service schemes.  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jorel62 on April 29, 2013, 02:15:57 AM
Now that is cool.......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 29, 2013, 06:28:04 AM
Thanks folks.

Too bad it was unsuccessfully pitched to the Czechoslovak air force. I'd love to have seen some in service schemes.  :)

Thanks 'north. I reckoned that the Czechs were better off with the Mezek if the Jumo 211A was the only engine available to them. Now if they could get their hands on some Griffons ...  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 29, 2013, 11:35:54 AM
Back to the Airbus Rus story ...

At an early stage, Airbus Rus and its partner Ilyushin had decided to relocate Il-76/AR76x production from the TAPO plant in Tashkent, Uzbekistan to the former Aviastar-SP plant in Russia. But Airbus Rus faced an additional challenge at Ulyanovsk ... the facility was cluttered with partially-completed Antonov An-124 components.

Having surveyed the available An-124 components, it was concluded that there were sufficient parts to complete most of three airframes with a useful supply of airframe spares. Airbus Rus put out feelers to industry only to discover that the market was limited for airlifters originating from Soviet-era parts.

In consultation with Volga-Dnepr Airlines, it was concluded that a niche market did exist for a super heavy lifter. Accordingly, the An-124-100 airframe was redesigned in cooperation with Antonov StC of the Ukraine. The resulting An-324 design had a much shortened fuselage. Combined with the standard An-124 wing and  engines, this would reduce airframe weight enough to boost the maximum payload to 160 tonnes.

All three An-324s were delivered to Volga-Dnepr which expected to use these super heavy lifters to carry loads for the oil and gas industry. However, a lucrative new market had emerged -- airlifting NATO main battle tanks to Afghanistan. As a result of that market, only one An-324 was ever painting in Volga-Dnepr's  livery. The other two operated as 'white tails' in and out of Kandahar.

[Based on a discussion about Antonovs with GTX]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 30, 2013, 08:51:31 AM
If I could only get one in AE.....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Scooterman on April 30, 2013, 10:41:30 AM
Oooooo and guess who has an idle An-124 kit.   ;)

LOVE the idea.  Well thought out.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2013, 12:57:38 PM
Oooooo and guess who has an idle An-124 kit.   ;)

Any Leopard tanks in the same scale?  :)  Get out that razor saw  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2013, 01:00:58 PM
Another Arsenal scenario: this time with Canadian-produced airframes intended for the Armée de l'air ...

Two freighters carrying semi-completed VG.33 C1 fighters left from Montreal in early June 1940 bound for Cherbourg. On 15 June, the MV Erik Boye was sunk in the North Atlantic by a U-boat's torpedo. The SS Port Williams escaped attack and, on 17 June 1940, was diverted first toward Southampton, then on to Bristol.

Offloaded at Bristol, the VG.33 airframes were directed to the plant of Parnall Aircraft Ltd. Pressed to make use of these exotic but engineless airframes, Parnall's concluded that the Arsenals could be quickly made airworthy as fighter-trainers. The search for suitable engines revealed a nearby store of well-worn RAF Hawker Fury biplanes. These aged aircraft could be safely stripped of their Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines and a worthwhile fighter-trainer created.

A prototype conversion dubbed the AAC (Arsenal Aircraft of Canada) Arrow made its first test hop on 23 July 1940. This aircraft adapted the Hawker cowling and engine bearers to the VG.33 airframe and retained the twin cowl Vickers guns of the Fury. While a quick fix, this solution was not acceptable to the RAF. Wing  guns were considered essential to make an adequate armaments trainer and interest was growing in the potential use of the Arrow as a 'panic fighter' should that become necessary.

The 'production' AAC Arrow Mk.IA trainers had cowlings adapted from the Master Mk.I trainer and six wing guns. The RAF would have preferrred .303" Browning guns but these were in short supply. Instead, the Arrow Mk.IA were fitted with ex-US .30" Marlin machine guns. These surplus guns were throught adequate for training but the elderly Marlins were prone to stoppages so it is as well that Arrow never had to perform in the 'panic fighter' role.

After the Battle of Britain, AAC and Parnall's approached the RAF with a proposal for a more capable Arrow  T.Mk.II fighter-trainer. This was to have a gun armament of eight Brownings and be powered by either a refurbished Rolls-Royce Merlin or a new RR Peregrine V-12. But, by this time, the RAF had war-weary frontline fighters to choose from for training and the Arrow  T.Mk.II concept was declined.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on April 30, 2013, 01:06:21 PM
Love those Arrows!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2013, 01:15:23 PM
Cheers Litvyak. As you may have guessed, some CanCon coming with the Arrows.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on May 01, 2013, 06:12:18 AM
Great Arrows, could they be used as reinforcements for the FEAF?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2013, 06:46:15 AM
Wait for it ...  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 01, 2013, 07:04:07 AM
Beautiful VG.33s... Were those engine installations "French projects" or are they Apophenia dreams? Either way, they are marvelous. :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2013, 11:08:42 AM
Strictly "Apophena dreams"  :D  It seemed to make sense, though. If the Armée de l'air wants to order wooden fighters, why not order some airframes from one of the places where they keep all the trees?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on May 02, 2013, 01:10:38 PM
Very cool stuff going on with those Arrows! They look like some serious hot rods.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 07, 2013, 05:51:54 AM
Those Arrows look absolutely outstanding! If I had a Fiat G.50 in the stash, I might try copying it in 3D.

Most excellent, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 08, 2013, 09:48:20 AM
Having failed to attract the RAF with the AAC/Parnall Arrow Mk.II trainer, Arsenal Aircraft of Canada presented a similar, Merlin-powered fighter to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canada had a pressing need for additional domestic fighters and the low strategic material content of the AAC proposal appealled to RCAF planners. However, the RCAF objected to the six-gun wing armament of the VG.33 derivative.

AAC had anticipated the armament objection and found a simple solution. The undercarriage of the Arrow derivative would simply be moved inboard (with retracted wheels almost meeting on the centre line). This allowed for a wing armament of up to eight machine guns. A bigger concern was that all available Merlin  engines were allotted to Canadian-produced Hawker Hurricanes.

After consultation with the RCAF, it was decided to substitute the Allison V-1710 powerplant. Installing this engine was comparatively simple since AAC was originally meant to supply Allison-powered VG.32 fighters to the French. The new fighter, now named the AAC Ares, developed quickly and differed in detail from the VG.32 -- aside from the revised undercarriage, the Ares also introduced twin, synchronized .50" cowl guns with another pair of 'fifties' in the new inboard wing positions.

The prototype Ares F.Mk.I (top) flew with a V-1710-33 engine in late May 1941. The first production Ares,  the F.Mk.IA with a six-gun wing armament, followed in September 1941. In the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, the F.Mk.IAs were quickly issued to West Coast fighter squadrons. The pressure was now on AAC to fully arm the Mk.IAs and field the eight-gunned Ares F.Mk.IB as soon as possible.

Bottom: AAC Ares F.Mk.IA (upgraded) of No.111 (Fighter) Squadron flying in defence of Vancouver harbour in late 1941.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 08, 2013, 10:02:30 AM
Love it!! Like, *love* it!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 08, 2013, 12:22:30 PM
Beautiful! :-*
Could you design someday a Twin-Arsenal with the port fuselage having no pilot (or having a radial engine)?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on May 10, 2013, 01:44:24 PM
Top stuff as always! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2013, 09:43:43 AM
Thanks folks. Here's a quickie 'sœur jumelle' for Tophe ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2013, 09:45:44 AM
Back to the Arsenal Aircraft of Canada story ...

Although much of the design work for the Ares F.Mk.IA was already done by the Arsenal VG.32, the Allison was not AAC's first powerplant choice. AAC's small design department saw more promise in a smaller engine,  the US Continental IV-1430 inverted V-12. This led to a design study known as the 'Ares Hyper'.

It was proposed that the IV-1430-1 powerplant be installed in a standard Ares F.Mk.I airframe. The engine would be fed by a Bendix-Stromberg PD-12P2 updraught carburettor (fed from an air intake in the ventral radiator bath).

The smaller IV-1420 allowed AAC to consider larger cowl guns. The proposed main armament was an aircraft version of the 20mm Polsten cannon to be made by John Inglis Ltd of Toronto. It was hoped that the lighter Polsten guns (along with the elimination of the intercooled GE turbocharger) would help offset the greater dry weight of the Continental engine.

A single Ares F.Mk.I airframe was temporarily converted into an 'Ares Hyper' mockup. However, in the end,  neither the IV-1420 engine nor the aircraft Polsten gun became production items. The 'Ares Hyper' became a 'widow' project with neither powerplant not main armament available to it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 13, 2013, 09:53:11 AM
Thanks folks. Here's a quickie 'sœur jumelle' for Tophe ...
Very lovely! Thanks a lot! And congratulations...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 13, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
Beautiful real!! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 14, 2013, 10:26:58 AM
The Ares F.Mk.II was to have an Allison V-1710-F20R but development was delayed as Arsenal Aircraft of Canada focused on production of Mk.I fighters. For the Ares F.Mk.III series the Mk.I's V-1710-C15 engine was replaced by its USAAF equivalent (the V-1710-33) and US equipment substituted for much of the RCAF's preferred British kit.

The Ares F.Mk.III employed US equipment and armament for better integration with the USAAF supply lines in the Alaskan theatre. The Ares F.Mk.IIIA retained the armament of the Ares F.Mk.I but its machine gun-calibre Brownings switched to US .3" rounds. Intended to defend the coast of British Columbia coast, the Ares F.Mk.IIIB retained .303" machine guns.

(Top) This Ares F.Mk.IIIA of No.111 'Thunderbird' Squadron sports a range of Alaskan markings. The yellow spinner and vertical white stripes follows the example of fighters of the USAAF 11th FS. On the fuselage is the short-lived 'D' Type or 'Western Air Command' roundel. The wing 'A' and 'B' Type roundels were retained but had their red portions overpainted with white.

This aircraft is almost factory-fresh. A No.111 Squadron thunderbird 'totem' has been painted on its nose  but squadron codes are missing and the individual aircraft letter has only been chaulked on.

____________________


The Ares F.Mk.IIIC took US standardization another step. Armament now consisted of six .5" Brownings - two cowl guns, two wing guns, and a further two guns in underwing pods. While this considerably increased the Ares' weight of fire, underwing pods had a deleterious effect on both top speed and manoeuvrability. Many Mk.IIICs had their pod guns removed in the field. Some 'Cs had US Type Q2 bomb racks installed in place of the pods. Others flew as four-gun interceptors.

(Bottom) No.14 (F) Squadron took on Ares F.Mk.IIICs when it rotated from Sea Island, BC to the Alaskan theatre. This aircraft had its standard RCAF markings modified in the field. All trace of insignia red paint has been removed. Its roundels have been overpainted with white and even its tailfin red stripe has been covered over with a coat of fresh Ocean Grey.

The fuselage codes are slightly unusual on YA-F. The southern-style underscored squadron codes are retained but these are matched with an oversized individual aircraft letter (note that this 'F' has also been given a Dark Green outline where it overlaps the Sky fuselage band).

This Ares F.Mk.IIIC saw heavy use in the Aleutian campaign. Having operated from Adak and Amchitka Islands, this Ares left on its final mission from Umnak on 15 August 1943. The planned 'Rhubarb' over Kiska proved uneventful as the Japanese had already abandoned the island. However, on the return leg of the mission, Ares 9241 developed engine trouble and lost power. Plane and pilot were last seen descending through low cloud 20 miles NE of Kiska.
Title: CAMS Arrow
Post by: apophenia on May 17, 2013, 08:47:43 AM
By 1941, the Parnall Aircraft factory at Yate had become Frazer-Nash and was producing hydraulic gun turrets. But, as Frazer-Nash, the firm had inherited the support contract for RAF Arrow fighter trainers. The latter was a type that the RAF found it had little use for but, with the advent of the Catapult Aircraft Merchant Ship concept, a new role was suggested.

Frazer-Nash's initial proposal for a CAMS rebuild was rejected as existing Arrows had seen hard use at the hands of  student pilots and their 'recycled' Kestrel engines were already old when the Arrow conversions were first created.

Rejection of conversions raised the possibility of new-built CAMS Arrows. Parnall's had done some design work on an Arrow which re-used the Napier Dagger air-cooled engines from the Hawker Hector. That concept was resurrected for the catapult-launched Arrow. As with the Arrow fighter trainers, Canadian-made airframes would be provided with engines taken from RAF stores.

As Daggers had also become available from the Handley-Page Hereford re-engining programme, Frazer-Nash revised its original submission. The initially that that airframe finishes could be minimal (as the CAMS fighters were expected to be single-use aircraft) was abandoned in favour of painted finishes (including  RCAF schemes when already applied to semi-complete airframes). The Hector-style cowling was also revised (with the portside trough for a synchonized machine gun eliminated).

The worth of the 'Dagger Arrow' scheme was acknowledged as it made use of a low-strategic material airframe and now-unwanted powerplants. However, the Fleet Air Arm now had war-weary Fulmar and Hurricane fighters available for the CAMS role. No order was placed for the 'Dagger Arrow' and Frazer-Nash returned to producing aircraft gun turrets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 17, 2013, 08:53:18 AM
Great addition, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2013, 02:55:31 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 19, 2013, 06:48:18 AM
Thanks folks! I forgot to mention that I 'borrowed' the CAMS catapult from a Herbert Ringlstetter profile of a 'Hurricat'  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 19, 2013, 01:18:05 PM
Arsenal Aircraft of Canada finally got access to a Packard-built Merlin engine when a CCF Hurricane Mk.X  was damaged on the ground in Edmonton. With permission of the RCAF, the 1,300 hp Merlin 28 was experimentally installed in a Ares Mk.Ib returned to the AAC facory with engine bearer damage.

Dubbed the 'Merlin Ares', this test mule proved considerably faster than the Allison-powered Ares. This aircraft was dispatched to Patricia Bay, BC, where it was to undergo trials as a tactical reconnaissance fighter as well as testing its experimental camouflage. Unfortunately, Ares 9327 suffered a landing accident on arrival at Pat Bay so no Tac-R trials could be undertaken and its 'Hun Scheme' was never tested over the Pacific.

(Top) The 'Merlin Ares' as orginally flown (armament and main wheel doors were fitted later).

Another Ares was converted to take the 'high' Allison V-1710-F3R engine. after engine trials, this aircraft was transferred to Bell Aircraft as the USAAF's XP-76B (42-21163). The XP-76B was used to test wooden airframe components for XP-77 (and potential parts substitution on P-63 Kingcobra). The Ares airframe was later tested to destruction at Bell's test facility at Buffalo, NY.

(Bottom) Bell XP-76B in factory-fresh USAAF applied at AAC's paintshop. Note US insignia incorrectly applied to all four wing positions (these were later painted out by Bell).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 19, 2013, 01:39:05 PM
They're both great, but the Merlin Ares is gorgeous!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 20, 2013, 06:22:23 AM
That Merlin Ares looks soooo right!!!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 20, 2013, 03:32:56 PM
Bell XP_76B is outstanding!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on May 20, 2013, 04:15:58 PM
Bell XP_76B is outstanding!

So true.   All the right things came together for XP_76B  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 22, 2013, 06:47:25 AM
By mid-1943, continued production of the Arsenal Aircraft of Canada Ares was in great doubt. Much of AAC's production capability had been turned over to the making of wooden Mosquito components for de Havilland Canada. American P-40 Kittyhawk fighters were readily available through Lend-Lease and the Ares itself required a new powerplant.

The XP-76B was a 'high nose' Allison mule but its V-1710-F3R engine was never intended for the 'base' Ares  airframe. Instead, AAC had been working towards a 'Big-Wing Ares' project. This would have a deeper chord wing allowing, among other things, a wing-mounted armament of six 0.5" Browning guns.

In late 1943, the 'Big-Wing Ares' was ordered into limited production for the RCAF as the Achilles F.Mk.I. Other than its high-nose Allison and bigger wing, the Achilles differed from the Ares in detail. By comparison, the  fuselage was slightly longer, the radiator bath enlarged, and the undercarriage revised. The main gear was
strengthened and the Achilles featured a completely new tailwheel installation (retracting forward rather than backwards).

(Top) Achilles F.Mk.I 9257 'Eastside Essie' showing standard West Coast RCAF fighter markings for 1944. Squadron codes are not being used and all red has been removed from insignia. Individual aircraft letter is in its new location ahead of the fuselage roundel. Note that, following USAAF practice, the portside underwing roundel has been omitted).

While the heavy gun armament was appreciated, the Allison-powered Achilles was no faster than the Ares. But this would change when Packard-built Merlin engines belatedly became available to Arsenal. The 'Merlin Ares'  installation was modified to accept a 2-stage Packard Merlin 68. Fitting the 1,300 hp Merlin produced the Achilles F.Mk.II which was ordered into production in late 1944. The final model was the Achilles F.Mk.IIA of  early 1945 which introduced an all-around vision canopy (based on that of the Hawker Typhoon but actually sourced from suppliers for the P-47 Thunderbolt).

(Bottom) Achilles F.Mk.IIA 9277 in the new interceptor finish adopted for West Coast RCAF fighters in late 1944. Similar to the experimental 'Hun Scheme' with the underside Medium Sea Grey extended up the fuselage sides (and, in this case, on the rudder as well). New roundels have also been adopted (the yellow ring has been eliminated and a US-style 'bar' incorporated). No.111 Sqn also carried its 'totem' emblem and old squadron code on the nose.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 22, 2013, 07:29:36 AM
Eastside Essie there has some interesting lines, but the Mk. IIA is nice and sharp!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 22, 2013, 08:04:15 AM
The Merlin variant continues to impress (I'm biased & I DON'T CARE!!!).  :icon_music:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 22, 2013, 03:04:14 PM
The bubble-top version is marvelous, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 24, 2013, 02:39:35 AM
At the end of WWII, the RCAF stood down its West Coast fighter squadrons quite quickly. Near-new Achilles F.Mk.I fighters were offered for sale but the sole 'taker' was Nicaragua. Beginning in June 1946, ten Achilles F.Mk.IB served with the Escuadrón de Combate of the Fuerza Aérea de la Guardia Nacional at Managua/Las Mercedes.

(Top) A FAGN Achilles near the end of its service in 1949. The Nicaraguan Achilles were replaced by F-51D Mustangs and went into storage before being stripped for engine and armament spares. The airframes were sacrificed as fire fighting trainers at Las Mercedes.

The Achilles F.Mk.II served on in small numbers with the RCAF after WWII until being replaced by Mustang TF Mk.IV fighters. The last examples flew on West Coast meteorological duties. Disarmed Achilles served with this 'Met' flight on the West Coast until also being replaced by 'Met Mustangs' in 1954.

(Bottom) This Achilles was formerly with the 442 "City of Vancouver" Auxiliary Fighter Squadron (whose markings have now been painted over) but is shown here with the Climatological Flight at RCAF Pat Bay in 1951.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 24, 2013, 09:09:13 AM
Gorgeous!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on May 24, 2013, 01:12:54 PM
Fantastic!
Title: Seversky Reborn
Post by: apophenia on May 27, 2013, 08:43:58 AM
Seversky Reborn - Seversky Aviation Corporation and the EF200 Series Fighters

While Alexander Seversky was on a European sales tour in the winter of 1938–39, the Board of Seversky Aircraft  Corporation removed Seversky as President. The company would later be reorganized as the Republic Aviation Corporation. Out of options, Seversky struck out on his own.

Unbeknownst to his former Board, while in Europe, Seversky had managed to secure a lucrative contract from the French Armée de l'Air for a development of the Seversky AP-9 fighter. On the basis of that order, a new Seversky Aviation Corporation was formed in March 1939. SAC's base of operations was Miller Field, a former Army Airfield at New Dorp Beach, New York (Seversky shared the field with the NY National Guard's 102nd Observation Squadron  until October 1940 when the 'activated' 102nd relocated to Alabama).

Seversky's chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, had elected to stay with Republic. But Seversky was able to lure  two visiting Italian engineers to his new firm who would be responsible for the design of what would become the EF200 (Export Fighter, 200 series). Engineers Bob Longhi and Tony Alessio retained the overall layout of the AP-9 but adopted a rearward-retracting Curtiss-style undercarriage. This left more space in the centre section for fuel tanks and, in future, a central bomb rack.

As stipulated by the French contract, the new fighter was to be powered by a Gnome-Rhône 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. To conserve stocks of French-made engines, production aircraft were to be fitted with Rumanian-made IAR 14K engines. To that end, the French would import IAR 14Ks through Marseilles and 'empty' EP200 airframes  through St. Nazaire. At a Base de stockage, the airframe and engine would be united while French equipment and armament was also installed.

One Gnome-Rhône 14N was provided for the prototype EF200 which flew for the first time on 15 August 1939. The first hop was a publicity stunt with Seversky's wife, Evelyn Olliphant, at the controls. The aircraft was more thoroughly wrung out by Seversky test pilots later in the day. A few detail changes to the prototype were required by inspectors of the French Air Mission to the United States but production EF200s were already rolling down Seversky's new production lines at Miller Field.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 27, 2013, 08:47:29 AM
Seversky Reborn - EF200 Fighter Prototype and French Service

The speed with which the prototype Seversky EF200 was completed was somewhat misleading. Much of the airframe was derived from two privately-owned Seversky 'fighters'.  The prototype's fuselage and empennage was rebuilt from Major Seversky's own EP1 (c/n 147, NX-2587). The one-piece wings were based on those of the AP-7 racer (on loan to
the new firm from  Jacqueline Cochran) but constructed, in part, from components reclaimed from NX-2587.

(Top) The prototype Seversky EF200 as it appeared when first flown in August 1939. Although a variable-pitch Ratier propeller had been planned, this did not arrive on time. The prototype remained with Seversky as a trials 'mule' until being converted into the XP-41B for the US Army Air Corps.

Production Seversky fighters began leaving the line in early Spring of 1940. The first EF200-C1, as the Armée de l'Air designated it, was completed at a Loire-Atlantique Base de stockage in April 1940. All completed EF200-C1s were delivered to Groupe de Chasse II where they equipped 4 escadrille. This unit took the Seversky into action (alongside GC II's Curtiss Hawk 75As and Bloch MB.152-C1s) shortly after the German invasion began.

The aircraft equipping GC II/4 were all Series 1 EF200s armed with six 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine guns. GC II/4 began re-equiping from Hawk 75s at Xaffevillers on 1 May 1940 before moving to Orconte-hauteville two weeks later. Newly arrived Severskys were able to keep pace with EF200 attrition but, by the end of May, GC II/4 was in constant
retreat. Such was the chaos of this relocation that, within a month, none of CG II/4's Severskys were airworthy.

(Bottom) A production Seversky EF200-C1 in the standard Armée de l'Air fighter scheme. EF200 c/n 29 is shown when newly-delivered to 4 escadrille of Groupe de Chasse II at Orconte-hauteville in late May 1940. An individual aircraft number is painted in yellow on the rear fuselage. Below the cockpit is 'la mort fauchant' ('scything
death' being the GC II unit insignia).

GC II/4 was destined to be the only French Seversky unit. It had been planned that, by July 1940, the rest of the Groupe was to have been equipped with cannon-armed Series 2 EF200s. But those aircraft were never delivered. The French story of the Seversky EF200 came to an ignominious end in the end of June 1940. Having retreated to
Dun-sur-Auron in central France, GC II/4's personnel were burning their remaining EF200s on the ground.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 27, 2013, 08:49:27 AM
Love it. And the Jackie Cochrane mention = <3 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 27, 2013, 09:09:45 AM
Cheers Litvyak. Had kind of an aviatrix thing going there  ;)  I thought I'd made up the bit about Evelyn Olliphant de Seversky test flying for the company, then I saw this in her obit: " a New Orleans socialite who in 1930 took up flying to surprise her husband, by the late '30's was expert enough to help test-fly his planes until a heart condition grounded her". Who knew?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 27, 2013, 11:41:03 AM
Interesting, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on May 27, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
The nifty bits of history you can learn around here... ! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 27, 2013, 02:12:44 PM
That Seversky is one of a kind!! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 28, 2013, 03:13:57 AM
So, these two stayed with Severski rather than return to Italy to work for Caproni Reggiane?  That could change a lot.  Willl the EF200 evolve much along the lines of the Re.2000 ---> Re,2006 evolution, but with Allied instead of Axis engines?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 28, 2013, 10:20:59 AM
Thanks folks ... more to come!

So, these two stayed with Severski rather than return to Italy to work for Caproni Reggiane?  That could change a lot.  Willl the EF200 evolve much along the lines of the Re.2000 ---> Re,2006 evolution, but with Allied instead of Axis engines?

I knew that someone would recognize Bob and Tony   ;D  And, of course, the base aircraft. As for the EF200 evolution, let's say 'inspired by Reggiane' but not tied to it.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 28, 2013, 10:25:41 AM
Seversky Reborn - Ex-French EF200 Fighters in British Service

With the fall of France, the British Purchasing Commission began taking over outstanding contracts for combat aircraft. The Seversky EF200 was no exception. But the engineless Armée de l'Air EF200-C1 airframes building up at Miller Field provided an extra modicum of challenge for the Royal Air Force.

The only available British aero-engine of similar diameter to the twin-row Gnome-Rhône 14K was the single-row Bristol Mercury. The British engine was slightly less powerful but the Mercury was also lighter. With extended engine bearers, the EF200 airframe readily accepted a 840 hp Bristol Mercury VIII in a cowling from a Bristol  Blenheim bomber. This would later be changed to a Mercury VIIIA engine with cowl gun synchronisation gear.

(Top) A EF200-C1 converted as the first prototype Seversky Serval, SY201. Note that RAF markings have been painted over the standard French camouflage scheme. This aircraft was evaluated by the A&AEE at RAF Boscombe Down before  being returned to Bristol to act as a conversion pattern aircraft.

True to its origins, the Seversky Serval Mk.I was virtually identical to the French Series I EF200-C1 other than its engine type and substitution of British equipment. Intended as Army Cooperation aircraft, the first Servals were issued to RCAF No.112 Squadron (which converted from Lysander Mk.Is). But the RAF's real interest was in the cannon-armed Series II EF200.

Further Series I EF200 airframes were delivered but earlier, in late July 1940, Seversky had delivered the first  Series II airframes to Bristol for conversion to Serval Mk.II standards. These were armed with twin 0.303" Browning machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller arc plus a 20mm Hispano Mk.I cannon in each wing with a 60-round drum magazine. With this 'shell gun' armament, Army Cooperation entered the era of 'low attack'.

(Bottom) A Seversky Serval Mk.II of II (Army Cooperation) Squadron at RAF Hawkinge in early September 1940. Note that this 'Shiney Two' Serval has had its troublesome tailwheel cover doors removed to simplify maintenance.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 28, 2013, 12:10:46 PM
Great conversion!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 28, 2013, 01:23:58 PM
Thanks folks ... more to come!

So, these two stayed with Severski rather than return to Italy to work for Caproni Reggiane?  That could change a lot.  Willl the EF200 evolve much along the lines of the Re.2000 ---> Re,2006 evolution, but with Allied instead of Axis engines?

I knew that someone would recognize Bob and Tony   ;D  And, of course, the base aircraft. As for the EF200 evolution, let's say 'inspired by Reggiane' but not tied to it.  ;)
Well, I've got several books on that line of aircraft, starting back with one of my first purchases back in 1972.  As I said, "along the lines", but not tied to it.   Very clean line of development that kept it small rather than growing as the Republic line of development did; I can see this following a similar pattern but not identical nor mirroring.  Still, for grins, a Vulture-powered equivalent of the Re.2004 would be interesting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 28, 2013, 05:17:57 PM
Love the Severskys! Are you sure you couldn't get a Taurus on one? She's not a slight bird!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 29, 2013, 07:43:55 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: Hmmm, hadn't thought of a Vulture ... though Bob would approve of doing a Re.2004! Any idea what the size difference would be between the IF Zeta and a Vulture?

EH: Yep, the Taurus would easily fit. But I was going for something in the same diameter range as the G-R 14K. So no R-1830s either  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 29, 2013, 07:48:17 AM
Seversky Reborn - Seversky's Search for Alternative EF200 Powerplants

Further British orders for the Serval army cooperation fighters would be dependant upon Seversky finding suitable American engines for new-built airframes. The most promising candidate was the Pratt & Whitney X-100 twin-row, 14-cylinder radial. This enlarged Twin Wasp was almost exactly the same diameter as the G-R 14K but would be
capable of producing 1,300 hp on lower-grade 87 octane fuel.

The P&W X-100 was somewhat heavier than earlier EF200 engines but Seversky was confident that a reorganization of internal equipment could compensate. Although not flight-ready, an X-100 trial installation was begun in the late Autumn of 1940. The installation went smoothly but made clear that, for pilot visibility, an updraught carburettor would be required. Alas, the X-100 was given a low priority. Pratt announced that production engines would not be available until 1942 at the earliest and Seversky reluctantly shelved the X-100 project.

(Bottom) The EF200 prototype fitted with a P&W X-100 engine. Although considered a successful installation, there was no hope of timely production engines. The scrap view shows the X-100 cowling which was designed but never installed.

With its X-100 trials engine removed, the EF200 prototype was converted to yet another engine type. This was the Wright R-1820-G205A Cyclone. This single-row, 1,200 hp radial was readily available and solved the balance issue of heavier engines. In a surprise move, the US Army Air Corps requested the opportunity to test the Cyclone EF200
at Wright Field as their XP-41B.

(Top) XP-41B in its US Army Air Corps garb. Markings were minimal at this stage -- the USAAC designation is on the fin, tail stripes on the rudder, and US stars on upper port and lower starboard wings. The Wright Field 'arrow' is applied to the fuselage side.

Seversky was well aware that the USAAC's interest was really in the EF200's 20mm cannon installation. However,  even a slight possibility of a US order was worth the delay in the RAF Cyclone-Serval programme. The XP-41B was returned to Miller Field in June 1941 but, by that time, RAF interest in a Cyclone-Serval was waning.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 29, 2013, 09:32:09 AM
Beautiful aircraft and story, but one typo.  "...undraught carburettor ..." should be "...updraught carburettor ...".  Still, I like the way things are evolving here.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 29, 2013, 11:59:46 AM
Yes, this seems to be serious engineering... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 29, 2013, 05:48:21 PM
Outstanding work! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2013, 03:16:50 AM
Beautiful aircraft and story, but one typo.  "...undraught carburettor ..." should be "...updraught carburettor ...".  Still, I like the way things are evolving here.

Ooops  :-[  So that's why they couldn't get the X-100 to work!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2013, 03:20:07 AM
Seversky Reborn - End of the Line for the British Mercury-Serval

While the Mercury-engined Serval pioneered the 'low attack' role in 'domestic' Army Cooperation squadrons, it was soon eclipsed by the more-powereful Curtiss Tomahawk. The Servals were then passed on to AC squadrons in Africa where they would serve alongside similarly-engined Blenheim bombers.

Ex-II (AC) Squadron Serval Mk.IIs went to the Western Desert to equip 208 (AC) Squadron. RCAF No.112 Squadron became a fighter unit (as No.412) and its Serval Mk.Is went to the Sudan where they replaced the Hardys in B and C Flights of No.237 (Rhodesia) Squadron.

(Top) A 208 (AC) Squadron Serval Mk.II in Greece, April 1941. Note the 250-lb GP on the belly rack and tailwheel locked in the 'down' position. This Serval was lost when, heavily damaged by AA fire, it crash-landed at Kalamata airfield.

The Mercury-Serval series got an unexpected reprieve when Seversky received an order from the Fleet Air Arm. The Seversky Sea Lion carrier fighter was based on the Serval prototype navalized by Gloster. Intended as a fill-in until sufficient Grumman Marlets were available, the Sea Lion gain a place in posterity nonetheless. The FAA Sea  Gladiators of the Hal Far Fighter Flight on Malta could cope with bombers but not the Italian monoplane fighters. Using long range tanks, a dozen Sea Lions were flown in to HMS Falcon in February 1941. These Sea Lions flew top cover for the Sea Gladiators until the RAF took over full responsibility for the aerial defence of Malta.

(Bottom) A 'de-navalized' Seversky Sea Lion Mk.IA of the of the Hal Far Fighter Flight, Malta, March 1941. Note the longer tail wheel leg of the Sea Lion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on May 30, 2013, 05:55:30 AM
"undraught carburettor" = fuel injection ??

now we need a late-war tricycle-undercarriage version ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 30, 2013, 10:55:24 AM
Evan: Hmmm, hadn't thought of a Vulture ... though Bob would approve of doing a Re.2004! Any idea what the size difference would be between the IF Zeta and a Vulture?
I can't find exact dimensions for comparison, but looking at pictures, they appear of comparable dimensions.  With a bit more development, the Vulture could be a most useful engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 31, 2013, 06:59:03 AM
"undraught carburettor" = fuel injection ??

 ;D

I did a little playing around with Evan's idea of a Vulture Seversky. I used the original Hawker Tornado cowling as my model. The scaling is crude but Rolls-Royce's X-24 would just fit into the Re.2000 airframe. The big concern would be propeller clearance on landing!  :o

I've attached a Re.2004 sideview for comparison. I couldn't find any specs for the IF Zeta but the 'base' Delta RC.35 is bigger (other than width) than the Vulture's 'base' Peregrine. But, somehow, Isotta Fraschini seems to have created a smaller package with the Zeta. So, no Vulture-powered Re.2004s  :icon_crap:

FWIW, here's the Rolls-Royce Vulture specs:

Displacement - 42.47 L
Length overall - 2,226 mm
Width overall - 909 mm
Height overall - 1,071 mm
Weight - 1,111 kg
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 31, 2013, 11:14:40 AM
Thanks for this great addition! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 31, 2013, 12:12:45 PM
Beautiful!!  I do wish someone made a conversion for a Re.2004.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 01, 2013, 03:52:35 AM
Hey, if ItalianKits can do the unbuilt MC.205M, why not the Re.2004? (BTW, go on your captured Veltro fitted with a Merlin concept!)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 01, 2013, 03:55:45 AM
Seversky Reborn - Late-Model Radial-Engined SF200s With Sea Legs

The Mercury-Serval series was not the end of the radial-engined Seversky SF200 series. British Fleet Air Arm  interest in the stillborn Cyclone-Serval was transferred to the more promising X-100-powered version as that project matured. Pratt & Whitney was finally able to begin delivering production R-2000 engines in late 1942. By that time, Seversky had already improved its original engine installation.

To take full advantage of the extra powered delivered by the R-2000, Seversky had lengthened the fuselage. This pushed the cockpit rearward leaving space for an additional fuselage fuel tank behind the firewall. Less obvious changed included the strengthened the main gear (along with the undercarriage door revisions introduced on the
inline-engined SF250 series). Compared with its X-100 installation, Seversky revised the exhaust outlets,  replacing a single pipe on each side with multiple exhaust thrust augmenter tubes. An updraught Bendix-Stromberg PD12 carburettor was used and twin oil cooler intakes were let in to the wing leading edges.

The driving force behind the R-2000-powered SF225 was the British Fleet Air Arm. But, ironically, the FAA released the first SF225s for use by the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army. But the NEI fell to the Japanese for a single  SF225 had been completed for the ML-KNIL. Eight airframes near completion were taken over by the US Navy. The remainder were converted on the line into FAA Sea Horse F.Mk.Is.

(Top) A Seversky YF2N-1 of the US Navy's Fleet Air Combat Training Unit (Fighter) using dissimilar air combat training to familiarized Naval Aviators with Japanese fighter tactics. Note 'shipping out' style buzz codes.

Although the Seversky Sea Lion had not been an impressive performer, the FAA had appreciated its cannon armament. At the time, Sea Hurricanes were considered interim equipment and the FAA was very interested in more powerful,  radial-engined fighters. The SF225 Sea Horse was seen as a potential Marlet replacement. Unfortunately, R-2000  deliveries were never a wartime priority for Pratt & Whitney. High numbers of Sea Horses were never attained. Despite this, the Sea Horse was one of the most highly regarded FAA fighters until the advent of the Hawker Sea Fury.

(Bottom) A Seversky Sea Horse F.Mk.IA of No.804 Squadron on convoy duty aboard HMS Emperor, Oct-Nov 1943. Note 'carrier' tailwheel, catapult spools, and belly arrestor hook. The F.Mk.IA introduced a bulged canopy and eliminated wing-mounted machine guns.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 03, 2013, 08:03:42 AM
The Sea Horse is a real looker but as for that Vulture-Seversky...... contra-props, for the love of purty flying things, contra-props!!!! I need to see that beauty in service colours!!!  :-*  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on June 04, 2013, 01:51:50 AM
I have to echo what Empty Handed said about the Sea Horse  8)

To me, with that long canopy its crying out to have a second seat facing rearwards and a twin .30 in it.  Oh yeah, and a center line float and wing floats  ;)  Its a shoe in for an early scout float on a cruiser/battleship.  Would be a nice counterpart to my SFC-1 Osprey in the '46 GB  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2013, 09:54:57 AM
Thanks folks. Some inline Severskys are pending (but I'm a little hung up at the mo').

EH: I'd forgotten about the DH contra-props on that Tornado prototype. I was thinking that the Vulture-Seversky was a dead  end but ... tempted.

Cliffy: I like this two-seat floatplane idea. I may have to start whiffing my whifs  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2013, 05:37:57 AM
Seversky Reborn - Son of Serval - the Inline-Engined Scimitars

The US War Department had been hostile towards Seversky since the export of SEV-2PA-B3 fighters to Japan. In consequence, the US Government was often unwilling to release military engines for installation into Seversky fighters -- even for export to Britain. That situation changed when Packard began building Rolls-Royce Merlins under contract for the RAF.

While SAC Engineer Tony Alessio developed the Sea Horse, Bob Longhi was working on a refined, inline-engined development of the Serval. Being denied access to the US Allison V-12 may have been a stroke of good forture. When the Merlin-engined EF250 appeared, its performance was dramatically better than the rival Curtiss Kittyhawk. The British assessed the EF250 and quickly ordered it for the RAF as the Scimitar.

(Top) The prototype EF250 Scimitar flew in November 1941. It was powered by one of the first Packard-built Merlin engines. Note the large belly radiator housing plus Serval-style cockpit glazing and undercarriage fairings.

The production Scimitar F.Mk.I was powered by the Packard Merlin 28. These fighters were armed with six .50" Browning machine guns (although two guns were often removed in the field to lighten weight).

The Scimitar F.Mk.II was powered by a Packard Merlin 28 or 31. The F.Mk.II returned to the Serval's 20mm Hispano cannon armament. These fighters were often flown as top cover for bomb-carrying Scimitar F.Mk.IAs.

(Bottom) A brand-new Scimitar F.Mk.II of No.94 Squadron RAF at Gasr el Arid, Libya. This RAF Volunteer Reserve squadron converted from Hurricanes onto Scimitar Is and IIs in March 1942.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 13, 2013, 11:49:30 AM
Beautiful Severkies, thanks! :-*
(almost as gorgeous as Reggiane Re-2005)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 16, 2013, 10:16:25 AM
Thanks Tophe! Here's a few more ...

Seversky Reborn - Merlin-Engined Scimitars in RAF Service

The Scimitar F.Mk.III standardized on the Packard-built Merlin 31 and cannon  armament. Also standard were mounting points for a belly rack for bombs up to 500 lbs or a 52 gallon drop tank.

(Top) A Scimitar F.Mk.IIIA of No.26 (South African) Squadron at RAF Gatwick in May 1942. No.26 was the only squadron to operate the Scimitar in the temperate
camouflage scheme. Surviving aircraft went to the FFAF in North Africa when No.26 re-equipped with Mustangs later in 1942.

The Scimitar F.Mk.IV was externally identical to the Mk.III but had additional armour plate to protect the pilot and engine (the Mk.IVA having a 1,400 hp Merlin 33). The Mk.IV was a ground attack specialist which first saw action in Tunisia and remained in RAF service in Italy until early 1945.

(Bottom) A Scimitar F.Mk.IV of No.225 Squadron in Sicily, late July 1943. No.225 Sqn had arrived in Tunisia in late 1942.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 24, 2013, 11:25:57 AM
I've skipped to the end of my AltHist Seversky story.

(Top) A Reverse Lend-Leased late-model Scimitar in US markings. The USAAF wasn't interested in procuring the Merlin 68-powered Scimitar F.Mk.XI. Rather the sole
XP-41Q was used by the USAAF for comparative trials against Curtiss' XP-40Q prototype.

(Bottom) The last Scimitar was a partially-completed F.Mk.XIIIA converted into an unlimited racer for publicity purposes. The Packard Merlin 69 was replaced by a special, race-prepared Rolls-Royce Griffon 72-R.

The for EF250R, radiators were replaced with an evaporative cooling system. Steam pipes ran though the wings and a condensing tank sat in the original cockpit (the new pilot position being maved aft to the radio compartment).

The new cooling system did not function well in ground tests but it was hoped  that forward airspeed would cure the problems. Alas, this was not the case. On its maiden flight, the engine of the EF250R overheated and seized. The test pilot was forced to ditch and the EF250R sank just off the coast of Staten Island.

Much of Seversky's late-war production had been dedicated to building P-47 wing  and empennage sets for Republic's Farmingdale, NY line. With wartime orders cancelled in August 1945, the Seversky plant was forced to close. In December 1945, a take-over offer was accepted and the Miller Field facility became part of Republic Aviation.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 24, 2013, 11:45:33 AM
Wow, wonderful! :-*
I was dreaming of a YP-37-like derivative with a rear canopy and you designed it into this racer, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 24, 2013, 06:16:12 PM
The XP-41Q is really really nice!!!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on June 24, 2013, 06:30:42 PM
I like racers and the EF250R definitely looks the part - and it is different enough from any real-world racers  :D

... it should really be recovered from the waters, if it hasn't yet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 25, 2013, 08:42:51 AM
Thanks folks!

perttime: As for the EF250R, Raritan Bay where she went down is shallow so recovery would not be difficult. On the other hand, maybe the EF250R should be maintained as a gravesite for a really bad idea -- has anybody ever made evaporative cooling work properly?   ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on June 25, 2013, 02:06:24 PM
I guess all sorts of cooling systems have been made to work OK on racers. The boil-off system on the Galloping Ghost was apparently working adequately. Or... with the bigger engine, they might also have balanced things by burying a pretty conventional radiator in the tail.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 22, 2013, 11:14:25 AM
raafif did up a float-fighter version of the Airabonita for my 'Canadian Cobras' story line.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3320.msg49233#msg49233 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3320.msg49233#msg49233)

That inspired a float version of the production CanCar Cobra:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 22, 2013, 11:32:58 AM
Lovely! and well balanced! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 30, 2013, 09:22:19 AM
Inspired by Greg's idea for Allied Luftwaffe aircraft after a successful July Plot...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1687.msg53927#msg53927 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1687.msg53927#msg53927)

(Top) He 162A-0 Gelbe 11 of I/JG.71 in Jan 1945. Flying in defense of Berlin, this Spatz wears the so-called (and short-lived)  Kapitulation Rondelle and the neue Republik flag covered its tail Hakenkreuze.

(Bottom) He 162A-1 JE-105 of the newly-formed II/JG.73 'Steinhoff'. This aircraft was lost on April 1945 while flying top cover for Kurland-Kessel Schlachtgruppen bases. By this stage, Luftwaffe markings consisted of the new-style Eiserne Kreuz in six positions, neue Republik flags on the tail, and new squadron codes/aircraft numbers.

Both images are retouched from Simon Schatz's excellent profiles.
http://luftwaffe-aviation-art.blogspot.ca/ (http://luftwaffe-aviation-art.blogspot.ca/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 30, 2013, 09:38:13 AM
Nice colours and markings. It is pleasant to see He-162s on the "good" side... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 30, 2013, 06:36:59 PM
Outstanding! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Nexus1171 on October 11, 2013, 08:58:49 AM
Aphophenia

I love the following designs
I also like the following
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 15, 2013, 03:44:56 AM
Thanks for the feedback. GIB is nav/radio op (like the Fulmar or Firefly).

Now for some gull-winged Macch silliness:

Cranked Castoldis - Macchi Gabbiano & Corsaro

Macchi's C.220 Gabbiano was a close-support aircraft with reverse-gulled wings intended to provide clearance for under-fuselage ordance while also addressing the Saetta wing's high-speed stall problems. A comparatively tiny wing area gave the Gabbiano terrible characteristics (particularly on landing).

The C.210 Corsaro (or 'Super Saetta') was Mario Castoldi's design for a two-seat C.200 stablemate. The heavier Corsaro used a larger version of the Gabbiano wing and a larger, 1450 hp Fiat A.41 twin-row radial.

The failure of Fiat's ambitious 50 litre, 14-cylinder radial doomed the C.210 project. Plans to adapt the airframe to the 28-cylinder Alfa Romeo 1101 liquid-cooled radial would also be abandoned.

Image notes: Fuselages mostly based on Teodor Liviu Morosanu's early C.200 profile; wings and u/c based on Janusz Swiatlon's F4U-1.

The C.220 was envisioned as a scale-o-rame of 1/48 Macchi C.200 and 1/72 Corsair (spats are shortened 1/48 Fokker D.XXI units). The C.210 uses same scale Corsair and C.200 parts (with the latter's fuselage greatly extended obviously).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 15, 2013, 06:27:56 AM
Nice Macchis!

raafif did up a float-fighter version of the Airabonita for my 'Canadian Cobras' story line.
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3320.msg49233#msg49233[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3320.msg49233#msg49233[/url])
That inspired a float version of the production CanCar Cobra:
Have you seen the blue one built by Ericr? at http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3546.30 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3546.30)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Nexus1171 on October 15, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
Apophenia

Quote
Thanks for the feedback.
You're welcome

Quote
GIB is nav/radio op (like the Fulmar or Firefly).
Okay, I see your point.  I was wondering if you have considered employing it as a hybrid observation/ground-attack aircraft with the back-seater acting as an observer?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on October 15, 2013, 02:17:58 PM

That inspired a float version of the production CanCar Cobra:

beautiful floatplanization !  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2013, 05:59:00 AM
Nexus: The original concept wasn't mine. Upnorth went on to develop his idea in 'Stealing the Stuka': http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1501.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1501.0)

CCF Sea Goblin

In September 1940, the CCF-built Grumman GE-23 Goblin constituted the sole RCAF fighter defence of Nova Scotia. Flying from Dartmouth, the two-seat Goblin proved woefully unsuited to its role. By late 1941 the RCAF was considering transferring the Goblins to Army Co-operation duties when the Royal Canadian Navy expressed interest in the biplane.

Surviving RCAF Goblins were transferred from No. 118 RCAF Sqn's A Flight to the RCN's Shearwater Naval Air Station near Halifax, NS. Obviously obsolete as a fighter, the RCN intended to use the Goblin as a recce-strike aircraft from anticipated 'escort carriers'.

Fitted with US Navy-proved arrestor gear, the Sea Goblin first formed a training flight at Shearwater. Originally flown in slightly modified RCAF colours, the Sea Goblin fleet was later resprayed in a scheme similar to Royal Navy shipboard aircraft.

The Sea Goblins were fitted with wing racks for two 100-lb GP bombs. CCF experimented with US Mk 54 aerial depth charges. It was found that the Sea Goblin could carry two of the 325-lb weapons only if flown as a single-seater. One Sea Goblin Mk.IA (418) was permanently modified as a single-seater but the remainder of the fleet carried only one depth charge.

The Sea Goblins served alongside RCN Swordfish on RN escort carriers from late 1942 until May 1943 when CCF had built sufficient Sea Hurricanes to replace the remaining Grumman biplanes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 17, 2013, 07:06:12 AM
Now that's purty.  I wonder if they looked at up-engining it?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 17, 2013, 08:49:46 AM
I like your single-seat conversion. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 17, 2013, 03:15:29 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2013, 11:49:23 AM
Thanks lads!

Evan: The GE-23 was up-engined compared with the FFs (the 700 hp R-1820-78 Cyclone being replaced by a 800 hp R-1820-F52). If you meant re-engining the Goblin itself, the 1200 hp GR-1820-G205A with three-bladed prop would be an obvious choice (that Cyclone variant powering the Toronto-based Norwegian Hawk 75A-8s).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 18, 2013, 12:27:01 PM
I like that approach, subtle but quite plausible.  It would be an obvious move.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 24, 2013, 09:40:54 AM
Couldn't resist ...

In late 1942, Canadian Car and Foundry re-engined an RCN Sea Goblin with a more powerful Wright GR-1820-G205A Cyclone radial. A reduced-diameter, three-bladed propellor was fitted to ensure deck clearance on landing. The RCN regarded the re-engined Sea Goblin, serial 424, as a success but ordered no further modified examples.

Based on the success of the GR-1820-G205A installation, CanCar proposed a new variant. Taking advantage of its  ex-Grumman tooling, the GE-23 fuselage would be retained. But the day of the biplane was over and ex-Brewster wing tooling was scrapped. Instead, CCF proposed that the 'Goblin monoplane' be fitted with the wing of the Westland Lysander being build by National Steel Car in Malton, ON. This new variant was tentatively dubbed the Cormorant but the RCN declined the type. Instead, the CCF plant turned to production of SBW-3 Helldivers for the  US Navy.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 24, 2013, 10:26:35 AM
I prefer this "new" monoplane version, thanks!
Uh, the (new?) tail looks like a F4U one, is it?

EDIT: while looking back on previous pages to see the "old tail(s)", I discovered again your delicious "late EF-250"  :-* and that inspired new Mustang derivatives (http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P-51TR8_aah.JPG (http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/r_P-51TR8_aah.JPG) ), thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 25, 2013, 02:08:19 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Queeg on October 25, 2013, 06:03:50 AM
Kinda playing late catch-up on this thread ....it's packed full of goodness. Especially like the 109/P51 hybrid, very tempting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 02, 2013, 08:38:31 AM
Thanks folks. Tophe: Cormorant  tail was not based on the F4U but it does look rather similar.

Focke Wulf Schlachtflugzeuge

Focke Wulf designed its Fw 189C variant to meet the 1937 Schlachtflugzeuge contest. But, by late 1938, Kurt Tank had concluded that the As 410-powered twin-boomer would be underpowered. It was decided to bolster Focke Wulf's entry with an armoured ground attack derivative of the Fw 187 fighter would also be submitted.

Since the Luftwaffe's future Schlachtflugzeuge was to have air-cooled engines, Tank's team reviewed foreign powerplants. The first choice was the 540 hp Isotta-Fraschini Gamma R.C.35-I but this changed when Germany occupied Bohemia-Moravia, bringing Czech engine-maker Walter under German control.

In March 1939, the Fw 187 V2 prototype was rebuilt with its Jumo 210Gs replaced by twin Walter Sagitta I-MR air-cooled V12s. The proposed production Fw 187S-0 was to have its cockpit replaced by a fully-armoured enclosure. Armament was to be twin 7.92mm MG17s and two 2.0cm MG-FFs. The redesigned Fw 187S V1 conversion flew well but the RLM decided to curtain wartime Walter production to German-designed engines only.

By the beginning of 1940, Focke Wulf had completed two prototype Fw 187S-0s but these airframes remained engineless. However, after the fall of France, thought was given to re-using captured French engines. After examining Renault V12s, the choice fell on the larger Gnome-Rhône 14M radial. Engines of this type (complete with their Potez 63.11 cowlings) were installed in July 1940 and pre-production Fw 187S-1s began to be delivered to an operational trials unit, 4./SchG 101, based at Orly/Paris in late August 1941.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 02, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
The Fw-187 is not well known, I had to check the Web (http://lmk.vsetin.org/?clanek=81 (http://lmk.vsetin.org/?clanek=81) with Google) to appreciate your work.
And... congratulations, engineer, for your 'improvements'...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 02, 2013, 09:52:43 AM
Ah, one of my favorite "What Ifs"!  The Fw 187 was always so pretty.  I'd love to see a standard single seater with DBs and in the gray 109/110/190 fighter scheme.

Well done!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 03, 2013, 05:03:40 AM
Thanks Tophe. Yes, the Fw 187 is somewhat obscure but a rather dainty design, I think.

Logan: Agreed, a DB-powered single-seater would be cool. I know that the Luftwaffe felt no need for interceptors at that point but you'd think they'd have spotted the fast recce potential of such an aircraft.

Might the Fw 187 have also provided the Luftwaffe with a Westland Whirlwind analogue? The Jumo 210G is almost the same displacement as the Rolls-Royce Peregrine (19.7 litres vs. 21.2 L). Maybe tweak the Jumo 210 series, push the cockpit back, and add four MG-FFs to the nose?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 03, 2013, 05:52:04 AM
I honestly think that it's more likely that they would have gone bigger with the Jumo 211 or 213 a la Ta 154.  You could even incorporate the Fw 190D/F's blow canopy, too, since the original's was much like the Fw 190A's canopy.  For visibility, I think you'd want to keep the cockpit as far forward as possible.  If your weapons won't fit in the normal places (which they should), then I think the better alternatives are a lengthened nose or a ventral pod.  Even side blisters like the B-25 would work, too.  I kind of like the shorter noses on these sorts of fighters.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 12, 2013, 11:06:51 AM
Tiefdecker - Low-winged Monoplane Fighters for the Luftwaffe

Shortly after the Nazis came to power in the September 1930 German elections, the establishment of the Luftwaffe was announced. Heinkel had already begun work on biplane fighter designs but a new requirement was issued for a fully modern low-wing monoplane fighter as well.

The Heinkel He 49 series diverged into two designs for the new Luftwaffe. The He 49c prototype formed the basis for the Luftwaffe's first new fighter, the biplane He 51A. The original He 49a prototype was modified into what would become the He 52 V2 monoplane. The later combined the shorter fuselages of the He 49a with a wooden eliptical wing scaled-down from the He 70 transport.

The production He 52A was powered by the same 740 hp BMW VI V-12 as the He 51 biplane. The empennage was identical in both types and the fuselages were similar (whereas the He 51 got a 40 cm stretch to the He 49 rear fuselage, the stretch on the He 52 was in front of the cockpit). For simplicity, the RVM ruled against a retractable undercarriage for the He 52 so both types featured fixed, spatted landing gears.

'Zwei Eisen im Feuer'

The He 52A was ready for service use in early 1933 but, against Ernst Udet's recommendations, the RVM issued a request for a back-up design. The Bayerische Flugzeugwerke M.32 was a low-wing monoplane fighter designed by Willy Messerschmitt at the invitation of Rudolf Hess. Essentially an enlarged M.29 racer, like the He 52, the M.32 was fitted with a 740 hp BMW VI 7,3 Z V-12 engine.

Shown here is the prototype M.32 v1, first flown in August 1933. The M.32 introduced some radical features. Its cockpit was fitted with a side-hinged canopy (a feature rejected when proposed for the He 52. The M.32's monocoque fuselage was largely constructed from pre-pressed dural 'hoops'. Less successful was the all-moving horizontal tailplane. The small run of re-production M.32a fighters had fixed stabilizers on a revised tail with a horn-balanced rudder.

BFW received no order for the definitive M.32b interceptor. Instead, Messerschmitt was encouraged by the new Reichsluftfahrtministerium to pursue his more advanced M.38 design for the Luftwaffe. The M.38 was superficially similar to the M.32b but smaller overall due to its use of the new aka BMW XII (aka BMW 116) inverted V-12 rated at 620 hp.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 12, 2013, 11:17:02 AM
Very nice!  I like those a lot.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 12, 2013, 11:20:36 AM
Those two sure look right for the time and their role.   :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 12, 2013, 02:18:30 PM
I like the Bf-109 forefather... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 12, 2013, 05:08:20 PM
 :)

The M.32 looks somewhat like the Avia B.35
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 14, 2013, 05:24:21 AM
La Nouvelle Mode -- Low-winged Monoplane Fighters

The Germans weren't the only ones devising new low-winged monoplane fighter designs. The French led the way with the Dewoitine D.500 series. Less structurally advanced but quicker into service was the Hawker Fury Monoplane (adopted by the RAF as the Harrier Mk.I). The latter, like the He 52, was adapted from an existing biplane fighter. This, by far, became the commonest approach to producing new fighter designs.


Avions Fairey Furieux (Monoplan Firefly)

The Avions Fairey Furieux prototype was a short-lived local Belgian experiment with monoplane fighter. Originally known as the Monoplan Firefly, Avions Fairey incorporated much of the Firefly's fuselage into their Furieux design. First flown in August 1934, the prototype Furieux was written off by an Aéronautique Militaire pilot at Goetsenhoven in late September.

A second prototype was proposed but development was opposed by the parent Fairey firm. Instead, it was proposed to construct an Avions Fairey Féroce monoplane fighter based on the Fantôme biplane. Budgetary considerations ruled against this approach and imported Hawker Harriers were ordered for the Aéronautique Militaire.

Fokker D.XVIII

The Fokker D.XVIII was a relatively late entry into the low-wing monoplane fighter category. The Dutch LVA had bought Fokker D.XVI biplanes for their Jacht Vliegtuig Afdeling in late 1932. As follow-ons, Fokker trialled two inline engine fighters -- the biplane D.XVII and the monoplane D.XVIII. Deliveries of the latter began to JaVA in early 1936.

Shown is the first prototype D.XVIII temporarily fitted with a four-gun armament. One D.XVIII was experimentally fitted with an enclosed canopy and revised tailplane. That aircraft (Nr.212) retained its distinctive tail but the unpopular cockpit enclosure was quickly removed. Trial installations of French Lorraine Pétrel and Hispano Suiza 12X brs engines were also proposed but not completed (D.XVIII development being eclipsed by the more advanced Fokker D.XXI fighter).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 14, 2013, 06:13:26 AM
These look great, Apophenia.  I've always like the Fox and--while this doesn't have quite the same charm--it's certainly nice, nonetheless.  Are you planning on doing developments of these two?

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 14, 2013, 10:37:57 AM
Thanks for having added an experimental canopy to the D-XVIII: without it, I do not recognize the planes personality (as far as I am concerned) ??? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on November 15, 2013, 12:07:09 AM
The open cockpit monoplane fighters are great   :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2013, 02:27:12 AM
Thanks folks.

Logan: The Firefly was a very jaunty little fighter. And, yeah, the monoplane loses much of its charm. No developments of these two though (but I may return to the Messerschmitt designs).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2013, 02:28:32 AM
Eastern Promise -- Low-Wing Monoplane Fighters

Avia B-235

The Avia B-35 series was intended to be a minimal modification of the B-534/III biplane fighter. Tested as a B-534 conversion, the B-135 prototype had poor stability. To preserve over-the-nose visibility, the rear fuselage of the B-135 was stretched (resulting in minimal commonality with the B-534 Series III).

The B-235 introduced a sliding cockpit canopy and twin wing-mounted vz.30 machine guns. Shown is the B-235 Series I with the original 'turtle back' canopy fairing. Pilots complained bitterly about the resulting rear blind spot. As a result, the B-235/II restored a degree of rearward visibility with its scalloped fairing.

PZL P.10

Having gleaned no orders for its inline-engined P.8 gull-winged monoplane, PZL turned its attention to a low-winged derivative. The prototype P.10/I was based on the P.8/II airframe and shared its Lorraine-Dietrich 12Hfrs Pétrel V12 (although Hispano-Suiza and Kestrel-powered variants were planned).

Demonstrated at Warsaw in late 1933, the P.10/I was rejected by the Lotnictwo Wojskowe (which preferred radial engines for its fighters). A sale tour by the P.10/I through Eastern Europe and the Balkans likewise failed to glean any orders and PZL shifted its emphasis to the Mercury IV S2-powered P.12/I prototype developed in parallel with PZL's gull-winged P.11a fighter.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 15, 2013, 03:07:45 AM
The -235 makes up for it!  Quite lovely.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 15, 2013, 08:21:15 PM
The last 2 batches of monoplanes are all quite excellent and have their own unique charms!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 16, 2013, 02:55:54 AM
I am waiting to see if there were Gloster products of the same form...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2013, 04:00:44 AM
Thanks folks. Greg: I was thinking of doing some British and French variants ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2013, 04:02:15 AM
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke Under State Control

The Luftwaffe's small order for M.32A fighters was not enough to sustain Bayerische Flugzeugwerke AG. Willy Messerschmitt had taken over the firm but the Bavarian government wanted a more permanent solution. In late 1933, an arrangement was struck whereby BFW came under majority State ownership. Part of this deal was that, where suitable engine types existed, BFW would use powerplants built by the Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (which was to establish a new factory in München-Milbertshofen).

Messerschmitt had continued development of the M.32 in hopes of attracting export orders. For test purposes, the Luftwaffe returned one M.32a to BFW. The M.32's removable tailcone facilitated a series of experimental tail surfaces aimed at improving low-speed control.

More radical changes resulted in this company demonstrator being redesignated M.32J Böe (Squall). Re-engining the M.32J with a 750 hp BMW VIIaU V-12 raising the fighter's thrust line (unlike the original direct-drive BMW VI, the BMW VII had a reduction gear). Shortly afterwards, the M.32J wing was modified to accept a radical new retractable undercarriage.

Consideration was then given to re-engining the M.32J with BMW's new monoblock V-12. Although less powerful than the BMW VII, the new inverted V-12 was also much lighter. Willy Messerschmitt became convinced that the new engine (designated BMW XII and, later, BMW 116) warranted a 'clean sheet' fighter design.

The resulting M.39 Orkan (Hurricane) design bore a close resemblance to the M.32J fitted with its outward retracting landing gear. But the new fighter was slightly smaller overall and correspondingly lighter. After initial flight trials at Augsburg, the M.39a prototype was delivered to the Luftwaffe test field at Rechlin.

Comparative trials showed the M.39 (now re-designated Bf 109 V1) to be superior to the rival Heinkel He 112. As a result of these trials, the BMW 116-powered fighter was ordered into large-scale production as the Luftwaffe's standard fighter - the BFW Bf 109A-1.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 16, 2013, 04:08:52 AM
I love that M.32J :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 16, 2013, 07:29:11 AM
Fascinating alternate take on history!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 16, 2013, 10:06:45 AM
Fascinating alternate take on history!
Yes, great! (for the evil side, though)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2013, 12:00:23 PM
Radial-Engined Low-wing Monoplane Fighters

The Bristol Type 124 was an alternative submission for the F7/30 fighter competition. Although a monoplane, the Type 124's fuselage was clearly derived from the Type 105 Bulldog. Like Bristol's other radial-engined F7/30 submission, the Type 133, the Type 123 was powered by a 640 hp Mercury VIS2.

Ultimately, the F7/30 fighter contest was won by the Gloster Gladiator biplane. The sole Bristol Type 124 prototype was sold to the Swedish Air Force which employed it for experimental purposes (as the J7M) alongside its J7 Bulldog biplane fighters. The Type 124 was written off in a ground loop accident at Barkarby in 1937.

A more successful fighter was the 1935 Fokker D.XIX, a radial-engined development of the Fokker D.XVIII.  Ironically, Fokker had specifically developed the Mercury-engined D.XIX to replace Finland's Ilmavoimat Bulldog fighters. Although less advanced than Bristol's Type 123, in some ways, the D.XIX had wooden wings and empennage which better suited Finnish production capabilities.

VL began deliveries of locally-built D.XIXs in early 1938. Initial production models were armed with two 7.7mm Vickers machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller. Later machines had four 7.7mm Browning guns, two of which were mounted in the wings to fire outside the propeller arc.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on November 16, 2013, 05:28:12 PM
Nice work on the 123!

regards
Lauhof
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on November 16, 2013, 06:34:07 PM
The D.XIX parallels very nicely what really happened with Finnish D.XXI.
VL already knew how to build aircraft the Fokker way.
... And the real world D.XXI was about the best performing somewhat proven design that was available at the time. There were other higher performance fighters out there - but somehow they'd ended up not being available.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 17, 2013, 02:37:04 AM
Nice work on the 123!


Agreed!

Maybe someone should do the same with the Hawker Fury...oh, that's right they did - it was the Hurricane. ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 18, 2013, 12:03:19 PM
Maybe someone should do the same with the Hawker Fury...oh, that's right they did - it was the Hurricane. ;D

Are you sure ...  >:D

Hawker's Fury Monoplane - the Harrier and Harpy

The Harrier was one of three Hawker submissions for F.5/34 (Interceptor Monoplane). Initially known as the P.V.4 Fury Monoplane, this fighter used as much of the Fury biplane structure as possible. The Fury fuselage had an another bay added forward of the cockpit to accommodate a monoplane centre section stub wing. To this stub wing were attached fabric-covered outer wing panels and the cantilever landing gear legs.

Ironically, the P.V.4 monoplane was ready sooner than the competing P.V.3 biplane (which required a largely revised structure). Rather than delay F.5/34 to allow other competing biplane fighters to be finished, the Air Ministry elected to issue an immediate contract for 50 P.V.4 monoplanes as the Harrier Mk.I.

The Harrier Mk.Is were delivered with 525 hp Kestrel IIIS engines but development plans aimed at Roll-Royce's evaporatively-cooled Goshawk. Trials with the 695 hp Goshawk III produced no noticeable improvement in the Harrier's performance. As a result, attention was turned to airframe improvements with the aim of installing evaporatively-cooled Roll-Royce engine, the larger PV-12.

Harpy - The 'opped-up 'arrier from 'awkers

Although the new PV-12 was only slightly larger than the Kestrel, it was almost 500 lbs heavier. As a result, considerable redesign of the Harrier fuselage was required to restore its c/g. At the time, the RAF was moving towards a new standard machine gun chambered for Vickers' rimless 12.7x81 ammunition. At an early stage, the Hawker design team decided to place this armament in the wings outside of the propeller arch. Thus the weighty BSA 'Aircraft Gun, Heavy' armament was was partly offset by the elimination of synchronization gear.

The most radical feature adopted for the 'PV-12 Harrier' was a completely retractable main undercarriage. This gear attached to the centre section stub wing and retracted outward into the wings (inboard of the gun bays). This design was quickly adopted by the RAF under a new name -- the Harpy. Since the PV-12 engine was not yet in full production, Harpy Mk.Is were powered by Kestrel VIs. The Harpy Mk.II was the first fitted with the PV-12 (by then named Merlin B). All Harpies were armed with four .5" BSA AGH guns.

Shown is the Harpy Mk.II demonstrator G-ABSE while at Brooklands airfield for tests in Nov 1935. In March 1936, G-ABSE moved to Martlesham Heath for RAF trials.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 18, 2013, 03:06:52 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on November 18, 2013, 03:34:15 PM
 :) :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on November 18, 2013, 07:09:58 PM
VERY clever indeed! And interesting change to the almost usual 'Spitfire heritage' stories.  :)

And those two just cry out to be built in plastic, maybe with the new Airfix Hurricane I as a root.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 18, 2013, 11:17:31 PM
Nice! Especially the Bristol 123!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 19, 2013, 01:57:15 AM
I wonder...landplane/fighter development of Supermarine S.6B?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 19, 2013, 02:41:42 AM
I wonder...landplane/fighter development of Supermarine S.6B?

You'd need to ditch the 'R' engine, simply too big and too delicate.
Give it a Kestrel and you'd actually have room in the airframe
for something other than just the engine.
 ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on November 19, 2013, 02:56:38 AM
I like the Harrier a lot!
... a couple of countries put radial engines on the Fury...

I might have to get back to my Macchi M39T, some time, and see what it needs to work as a fighter  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 22, 2013, 05:44:27 AM
Thanks folks ... Schneider-related development to come  ;)

perttime: Go on that fighter Macchi M39T  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 22, 2013, 05:48:09 AM
French and Franco-Spanish Low-wing Monoplane Fighters

Le Lorraine Hanriot avec un train escamotable

The Lorraine Hanriot LH 133 C1 was based upon the 1932 LH 131 Coupe Michelin racer. For the fighter design, Louis Montlaur lengthed the fuselage to balance the new SECM Lorraine 'Algol DE' (Algol double étoile) twin-row 18-cylinder radial (later renamed the Sirius 110). The wing was changed to an all-metal structure and flaps were installed.

Submitted for trials at the Centre d'Essais en Vol at Villacoublay in May 1934, the LH 133 C1 proved to have frightful handling characteristics. After two flights, trials were cancelled by the STAé and the prototype returned to the now independent Aeroplanes Hanriot et Cie. Tests with the redesignated H 133 C1 prototype continued but neither an enlarged tailplane nor a longer-span wing helped with handling.

Swiss, French, or Spanish? The Hispano-Delage 92

When Nieuport merged with Loire Aviation, former chief designer, Gustave Delage, retired. Delage went to work with Swiss watchmaker, Jaeger-LeCoultre, but also pitched his NiD 92 low-wing monoplane concept to Barcelona-based Hispano-Suiza. The latter had built Hispano-Nieuport 52s with very similar fuselages.

Spain's Aviación Militar accepted the new monoplane as the Hispano-Delage 92 C-1, intending to replace the less-than-satisfactory NiD 52. The prototype 'Tipo 92' was a heavily-modified HN 52 airframe powered by a 500 hp HS.12Hb driving a wooden propeller. The prototype featured fabric-covered wings and twin undercarriage leg-mounted Corominas radiators (which proved rather 'draggy').

The production HD 92 C-1 differed from the prototype most dramatically in having a more powerful HS 12X V12 engine with a horseshoe-shaped Chausson radiator in the extreme nose. The HS 12X drove a 2-bladed Helice Levasseur (in place of the prototypes wooden propeller). Dural-skinned wings replaced the fabric-covered units of the original. Armament consisted of two synchronized 7.7 mm Vickers machine guns.

HD 92 C-1 production began at the Fábrica Hispano-Suiza in Guadalajara in November 1934. The production model 'Tipo 92' served with two Aviación Militar Grupo as well as the Aeronáutica Naval's interceptor flight of the Escuadrilla de Combate y Adistramiento at San Javier.

A two-seater trainer version of the HD 92 was proposed as the E 34. This advanced trainer was to be powered by a licenced Hispano-Wright 9Qa radial engine. Unfortunately, neither the Aviación Militar nor Aeronaval had sufficient funds to proceed with the trainer project.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 22, 2013, 11:12:15 AM
Thanks for the revival of the (almost forgotten) Lorraine-Hanriot family... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 23, 2013, 01:06:13 AM
I DO love your early monoplanes!  :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 23, 2013, 03:31:11 AM
Those last two are very nice! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Thanks folks!

Gloster Low-Wing Monoplane Fighters [Part 1]

The Gloster S.S.21 was a fighter derived from the 1929 Schneider Trophy racing seaplane, the Gloster VI 'Golden Arrow'. Initially, the S.S.21 was to be a straightforward landplane fighter development. However, the design team quickly realized that a cantilever wing would be aerodynamically cleaner and better able to support the fixed main undercarriage without recourse to additional stuts.

In 1930, the Gloster aircraft Company was entering a critical phase in its history. To speed aircraft design development, an in-house rivalry between two separate design teams was encouraged. In effect, the S.S.21 was a monoplane rival to Gloster's S.S.18/S.S.19 series which led to the Gauntlet biplane fighter.

Originally known as the 'Golden Arrow Fighter', the S.S.21 was to be powered by the Napier Lionheart -- a new, air-cooled derivative of Napier's venerable Lion 'broad-arrow' 12-cyl. Compared with the Lion, the Lionheart had an increased stroke (6 inch vs 5.125 in for the Lion). The resulting 1739 cid (28.5 L) Lionheart IA was expected to produce over 800 hp (compared with only 580 hp for the 1461 cid/24 L supercharged Lion).

Other than a raised cockpit, the S.S.21 fuselage differed little from that of the Gloster VI racer. The cantilever wing, however, was completely different. This wing employed typical Gloster construction  --  corrugated steel-strip spars and ribs -- but was covered with riveted dural sheeting in the American style.

The prototype S.S.21 came together quickly but the Napier Lionheart was still in its bench testing phase. To get the prototype into the air, a liquid-cooled Lion engine was substituted. Twin coolant radiators were scabbed on to the inner sides of the heavily trousered undercarriage legs. Using this arrangement, the prototype (G-EAYN) flew from Brockworth aerodrome in March 1934 before being sent on to RAF Martlesham Heath.

The Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment assessment of the S.S.21 'Goral' (as it had been re-dubbed) was not especially flattering. The Lion lacked power and its radiators reduced top speed performance dramatically. In its tested form, the A&AEE could see no advantage over the in-service Hawker Harrier monoplane fighter. However, further development was encourage based on official interest in the Goral's proposed six-gun armament which was all to be mounted within the cantilever wing.

Upon the Goral's return to Brockworth, Gloster test-installed a non-flightworthy Napier Lionheart engine. The engine installation presented no unexpected challenges. However, Napier's Lionheart design was already in trouble. Test bench examples of this air-cooled engine suffered great overheating. Fan-cooling suggested one solution but, in November 1934, Gloster was informed of Napier's decision to terminate Lionheart development. Obviously, a new powerplant was called for ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 29, 2013, 11:49:16 AM
Oooh, very pretty.  Please continue.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2013, 11:50:50 AM
Cheers Logan! More to come from Gloster ...  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on November 29, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
What a fabulous looking aeroplane!

Brian da Basher will LOVE those spats too!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 30, 2013, 03:49:14 AM
Sweet!

But those aren't spats...they're full on trousers!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 30, 2013, 06:39:32 AM
Thanks lads!

'Kit: This whole thread was inspired by a What-would-Brian-Do notion. I can't match BdB's unbridled creativity but its fun to play in an adjacent field  ;)

Greg: Over time, BdB has expanded into being an equal opportunity undercarriage-leg coverer. Trousers are just spats bursting with confidence  :D

Gloster S.S.22 Gorcock II

At the time that its S.S.21 Goral was abandoned, Gloster was already working on a replacement monoplane fighter design. The S.S.22 retained the Goral's wing but featured a revised fuselage (thereby losing its final commonality with the Gloster VI racer. This deeper fuselage was required for new powerplants to replace the failed Napier Lionheart.

Napier had not entirely given up on the Lionheart design, only on its 'broad arrow' layout. Instead, complete Lionheart cylinder banks were to be arranged in a horizontal 'H' format. The resulting 2318.5 cid (38 L) brute of an engine would become Napier's Lion 16. It was hoped that the horizontal 'H' layout would allow for better cylinder air flow and, thus, avoid the Lionheart's fatal cooling problems.

As with the S.S.21, the S.S.22 prototype airframe was completed long before its intended powerplant. At the A&AEE's suggestion, Gloster substituted a 600 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel VIS for the unavailable Lion 16. With the Kestrel installed, the prototype S.S.22 flew at Brockworth in March 1935. For cooling, twin radiators were mounted inboard of the new, rearward-retractable undercarriage. Partially buried within the wing, these radiators proved remarkably low in drag.

The G.22 prototype was unarmed but, as the Gorcock II, armament options were twin, synchronized .5-inch machine guns mounted in the fuselage sides with options of an additional pair of wing-mounted BSA guns or four .303-inch wing guns firing outside the propeller arc. After successful trials at Martlesham Heath, the RAF elected to purchase the Gorcock II as a four-gunned interceptor.

The first production Gloster Gorcock Mk.I arrived at Duxford to begin re-equipping No.19 Squadron in October 1935. The Gorcock II proved fast, rugged, and reliable in service but only ever served with on squadron. The RAF wanted more Gorcocks but, it was claimed, the Brockworth plant could handle production of only one type and outstanding orders existed for the Gauntlet biplane fighter.

It has been claimed by some that Gloster's new owners, Hawker Siddeley, killed the Gorcock II to protect their own Harrier series and its Harpy derivative. But, as usual, the real story is more complicated. The Gorcock Mk.II was to have been powered by Napier's new Lion 16 but that engine was experiencing extended teething problems. With Hawker Siddeley's decision to end Gorcock production, the Mk.II programme was terminated.

Although the Gorcock II was built in small numbers, it had a lasting influence. It was not by accident that Hawker's later-production Harpies had metal-skinned wings with built-in armament. The Napier Lion 16 proved too heavy as a fighter engine but later came into its own as a fan-cooled bomber powerplant.


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 30, 2013, 08:05:13 AM
Wicked!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 30, 2013, 11:24:11 AM
I do love your Gorcock Mk II, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 30, 2013, 12:33:04 PM
S.S.21 Goral looks like it MUST be in some 1930s B&W aviation themed movie that I haven't seen yet.  :)
Should I be searching on Amazon or..... ?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 08, 2013, 08:14:04 AM
Thanks lads. I had a few other ideas for this theme but got waylaid by menengitis.  I don't recommend it. I mean, two full days of rapid-fire hallucincations and not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 08, 2013, 10:03:31 AM
Glad you got over that! Meningitis can be fatal, dude! :o

:)

Guy
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 08, 2013, 11:05:53 AM
Have a good recovery, apophenia... Take your time. We mostly need you alive, more than enjoying a constant rate of creations. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on December 08, 2013, 01:24:30 PM
YIKES!

I hope you have a speedy recovery and get back to full health soon.

I have to wonder though... When a whiffer hallucinates... wouldn't it be right for them to see realistic things?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 08, 2013, 02:21:04 PM
... wouldn't it be right for them to see realistic things?

Perish the thought!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on December 08, 2013, 02:55:49 PM
Have a good recovery, apophenia... Take your time. We mostly need you alive, more than enjoying a constant rate of creations. ;)

I second that!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on December 09, 2013, 03:54:55 PM
Take care, man...

You are one of important players in these fields...

Wish You fast and successful recovery!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on December 09, 2013, 07:32:30 PM
Ooof, sorry to hear that! Here's hoping for a speedy recovery. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 21, 2013, 11:04:04 AM
Wow, many thanks for the kind words and good wishes Lady and Gents. It means a lot! I'm on the mend ... but slowly.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 21, 2013, 11:06:24 AM
Il Figlio di Breda 27 metallico -- the Breda 66

The Società Italiana Ernesto Breda was an early proponent of low-winged monoplane fighters, having produced the braced monoplane Breda 27 in 1933-35. Intended as a Ba.27 replacement, the Breda 66 fighter adopted the more advanced construction techniques of the Breda 65 as well as many of that attack aircraft's major components.

As was the case with the Breda 27, the Regia Aeronautica tested the new fighter but placed no order. However, the Republic of China Air Force was anxious to replace its battle-worn Breda 27 fleet and a dozen Breda 66 fighters were purchased in early 1937.

Breda 66 airframes were shipped to Kouang-Tchéou-Wan accompanied by Breda technicians who assembled them upon arrival in the French territory. After tests, the completed Breda 66s were flown to Nanning for familiarization training, before replacing the worn-out Breda 27s.

Top: Breda 66 #804 is shown here in its delivery colours. ROCAF markings have been applied but the aircraft retains artifacts of an earlier European sales tour -- large Breda logos on each  fuselage side. Before entering combat in the autumn of 1937, the ROCAF Breda 66s were sprayed in camouflage colours - dark green on the uppers and pale grey on the undersides.

The Chinese regarded the Breda 66 as a solid airframe let down by its unreliable Piaggio Stella P.IX radial. These original Italian engines were later replaced by Shvetsov M-25 radials (in cowlings taken from Polikarpov I-15 biplanes). Fixed armament for the Breda 66 was twin, wing-mounted 7,92 mm Brownings (the optional second pair of wing machine guns never being  fitted to the ROCAF fighters).

Just Add Water -- the Fiat/CMASA ICR.36 Float Fighter

The first low-winged Fiat fighter in Regia Aeronautica service came about almost by accident. Fiat designer, Giuseppe Gabrielli, had begun work on his new G.48 fighter but the pace of progress was very slow. Part of the delay was due to the unavailability of the fighter's Fiat A.37 V-12 engine (a 26 L derivative of the A.30 stroked to 152 mm).

Construction of G.48 components had begun at a CMASA, a Fiat subsidiary at Marina di Pisa. Fed  up with the delays, Fiat management ordered CMASA designer, Manlio Stiavelli, to adapt the completed G.48 wing components to fulfil a Servizio Aeronautico della Regia Marina requirement for a float fighter to replace the IMAM Ro.44 biplane.

Ing. Stiavelli's solution was to mate the G.48 wing panels to the steel-tube fuselage of the Fiat CR.32 (which he did under the direction of Gabrielli's great rival, Celestino Rosatelli). The twin floats were mounted with a simple set of bracing struts. Due to the chimerical nature  of the design, prototype construction was completed very quickly and the RM ordered 20 of these float fighters as the Fiat/CMASA ICR.36.

The ICR.36 were issued to the Squadriglie Caccia Marittima both in Italy and the Aegean. The fighter was popular with RM pilots but tricky for novices to handle - especially when landing in heavy seas. To familiarize new pilots, an operational conversion unit was formed at the Pola training school at Puntisella. The aircraft illustrated here wears the POL markings of the Pola school.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on December 21, 2013, 12:49:57 PM
The Breda always makes me think that someone traced a Seversky product badly... forgot to trace the windscreen and then built it with flat plate where the canopy ended. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on December 21, 2013, 05:03:42 PM
Back in style!

Good to see You're with us again, Apophenia!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on December 22, 2013, 01:19:58 AM
Those look great, apophenia!  Well done!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on December 22, 2013, 01:48:30 AM
Very nice! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 22, 2013, 04:28:38 AM
That ICR.36 Float Fighter just must be built! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 25, 2013, 12:01:40 PM
Thanks lads ... here's some more:

Yugoslav Harrier -- an Hispano-Suiza powered Hawker Fighter

The 'Yugoslav Harrier' was ordered as part of the 1935 modernization of Vazduhoplovstvo Vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije. The first Harrier variant received by the  VVKJ was the Harrier Series 1 or 'Fairey Float Fighter' but that aircraft's Seafox landing gear proved too light. In early 1938, the surviving floatplanes were converted into land fighters by Zmaj (using new, Hawker-supplied wing sets).

The Zmaj conversions (Harrier Series 4) could be distinguished from other Yugoslav-assembled Harriers by their non-retractable tailwheels and armament. Harrier Series 2 aircraft were armed with 3 x 7.92 mm FN-Browning machine guns, Series 3 by twin 7.92 mm guns and an Oerlikon motor-cannon. Only the Series 1 and 4 Harrier had the 20mm HS-404 cannon.

Markings are the original overall silver-grey with the 'Kosovski krst' (Kosovo’s cross) roundels in four wing positions and Yugoslav tricolour rudder striping. These fighters were later resprayed in 3-colour upper camouflage with white aircraft numbers on the fuselage sides.

'Persian Harrier' - Napier-powered Hawker Fighter

The Imperial Iranian Air Force was the only buyer for the Dagger-powered Hawker Houri. These aircraft were intended for desert enviroments and meant as a stablemate for the 2-seat Hawker Hector. Iran's Hawker Houris (or Hūrī) were assembled at Bushehr and formed the fighter component of the IIAF's mixed type squadrons.

Houri #213 has been resprayed in the 1940 two-colour sand/stone camouflage scheme (some Houri also having their rudder stripes over-painted). This aircraft (which has had its canopy removed for some reason) was destroyed on the ground at Ahvaz airfield by RAF strafing on 27 August 1941.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 25, 2013, 12:02:49 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on December 25, 2013, 05:35:51 PM
Well, I don't know was this intentionally, but I feel flattered by seeing that Royal Yugoslav Air Force Harrier.

Great work, A!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 26, 2013, 06:22:51 AM
'Persian Harrier' - Napier-powered Hawker Fighter

The Imperial Iranian Air Force was the only buyer for the Dagger-powered Hawker Houri.

I was planning to build a Dagger Hurricane, it'll be a lot easier now I've seen it for real. Nice job.  :))
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 27, 2013, 09:44:18 AM
Thanks folks!

I was planning to build a Dagger Hurricane, it'll be a lot easier now I've seen it for real. Nice job.  :))

Looking forward to seeing that PR19!  Just remember to remove the radiator bath ... I forgot the first time through  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 27, 2013, 08:28:40 PM
Yes indeed, the Dagger's air-cooled for crying out loud!

But it doesn't look as if it should be for some reason, really weird, but it looked superb, especially on the MB2.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on December 28, 2013, 08:14:59 AM
In an Iraqi example you could always claim it is an oil cooler. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 28, 2013, 02:45:24 PM
Nice Huri, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 02, 2014, 08:32:48 AM
Happy New Year to all!

In an Iraqi example you could always claim it is an oil cooler. :)
   ;D

Curtiss Aeroplane Company and Curtiss Aero-Engines

In the aftermath of the 1929 stock market crash, enforcement of US anti-trust laws regained some favour. As a token gesture, Washington disallowed the early merger of Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor and Wright Aeronautical companies. Accordingly, the new Curtiss-Wright company was dissolved. In January 1930, Curtiss reformed as the new Curtiss Aeroplane Company with a separate Curtiss Aero-Engines (CAE) division.

While Curtiss' aircraft order books were healthy, the aero-engine section had dwindled in anticipation of a shift to Wright air-cooled radial powerplants in future Curtiss aircraft. To make matter worse, Curtiss' won air-cooled H-1640 Chieftain proved a failure and the USAAC ceased development funding for the long-lived V-1570 Conqueror range of liquid-cooled V-12s. Curtiss Aero-Engines needed a shot in the arm.

Although dating back to 1924, the Conqueror series offered the best chance of success. What was needed was a boost in power for the heavier V-12 to match the performance in the new breed of air-cooled radials. To this end, CAE developed the Curtiss V-1647 Curvet. The Curvet was a Conqueror evolution but the two engine types shared few parts -- freeing Curtiss from any USAAC claims to 'ownership' of the new design.

The Curvet retained the Conqueror's 6.3386-inch stroke but increased cylinder bore to 5.626-inches. Early versions of this 27 litre V-12 developed 850 hp giving them a comfortable performance edge over the contemporary Wright Cyclone radials. Although not specifically aimed at the USAAC, Curtiss Aero-Engines adopted the 'designation' V-1647 to market their Curvet V-12.

Even before the breakup of Curtiss-Wright, design work had begun on a low-winged monoplane development of Curtiss' successful Hawk series of biplane fighters. Interest was expressed by several potential export customers and adaptation of the Hawk airframe to its new Model 64 'MonoHawk' configuration began in the summer of 1931. The first export sales were to Colombia and Boliva, both of which had chosen Cyclone-engined MonoHawks.

With an apparent export success on their hands, the Curtiss Board then made an uncoventional decision. Cyclone-engined Model 64 production was brought to an abrupt halt. Henceforth, all MonoHawks would be powered by Curtiss Curvet liquid-cooled V-12s.

Continued backstory to follow ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 02, 2014, 08:36:57 AM
Curtiss Model 64 MonoHawk

The first order for Curtiss' new Model 64 fighter came from Colombia. Along with 20 Falcons and 20 Curtiss Hawk IIs, 10 MonoHawks were ordered for the Fuerza Aérea Colombiana in August of 1932. The aerial defence of Bogotá was the original FAC plan for the MonoHawks. However, everything changed with the Letiçia Incident.

In late Dec 1932, the FAC fleet of Curtiss aircraft were fitted with floats and flown south to the Amazonas Department. The MonoHawks were based at El Encanto, an Armada Nacional base at the mouth of the Caraparaná River made available to FAC. The MonoHawks performed well making the most of their speed advantage. One aircraft (844) shared a kill (a CAP Douglas O-38P, 12VG4) with a Puerto Arica-based Hawk II.

(Top) FAC hidroavione MonoHawk 841, ANC El Encanto, Feb 1933. Note that this aircraft is fitted with a long-range belly tank, Curtiss Electic constant-speed propeller, and, like all float MonoHawks, retains its tail wheel.

The two-tone 'Amazonas' scheme degraded performance slightly but camouflaged the FAC fighters in their preferred climbing attacks. The original silver-grey dope is retained on the under surfaces. Yellow ID panels have been added to the rudder, cowling, and wing tips. The individual aircraft number was also re-applied in yellow.

The Letiçia coat of arms on the fuselage sides became the crest for Escuadrón de Combate 100.  During the Letiçia Incident, EdC 100 fighters also had individual names applied. MonoHawk 841 was dubbed 'Hiracüño' (a local Huitoto word meaning 'wild bee'). MonoHawk 841 was lost in the Caraparaná on 16 April 1933 when Subteniente Juan Manuel Garzon stalled his fighter on approach.

Curtiss Model 65 'Cannoneer'

A prototype V-12 Model 64 powered by a V-1570 Conqueror had been flown in late 1931. The first V-1647 Curvet-powered MonoHawk, NX-1647, was retained by Curtiss as a demonstrator for several  years. In the Spring of 1933, NX-1647 was fitted with the new V-1647-20 'motor-gun' Curvet. This engine had a hollow propeller shaft allowing for the use of an unsynchronized machine gun or cannon.

Dubbed the Curtiss 'Cannoneer', the Model 65 demonstrator attracted considerable foreign attention. As part of its marketing strategy, Curtiss formed an alliance with Dansk Industri Syndikat to market the Madsen 20mm cannon which Curtiss would also build under licence. For the 1934 display season, the Model 65 had its cowl machine guns removed and a Madsen guns slung under each wing in a neat pod (with the shell drum enclosed in the wing itself). This variation on the 'Cannoneer' would represent the most heavily-armed single-engine fighter for some time. But all customers for the Model 65 preferred a single Madsen cannon with twin machine guns.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 02, 2014, 09:16:33 AM
Very attractive aircraft and an interesting backstory; 'twill be rather interesting to see where this goes.  The large engine history in the US is tangled, especially when you consider that Pratt & Whitney Engines was founded by a bunch of dis-satisfied Wright engineers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2014, 11:52:57 AM
Curtiss 2-Seat Fighters

Curtiss knew that its MonoHawk would soon be dated but first turned its attention to a more modern concept, the 2-seat Model 70 'Shrike Fighter'. Fuselage construction was similar to the Model 60 Shrike but this was now mated to a multi-spar cantilever wing.

Intended as an 'Escort Fighter', the Model 70 prototype was acepted by the US Army Air Corps as the Cohort, designated XPB-3 (in the short-lived Pursuit, Biplace category). This prototype was returned to Curtiss where, as the XPB-3A, it was fitted with a more fully-retractable  undercarriage -- the original underwing 'gondolas' being replaced by smaller fairings for main wheels that rotated 90° upon retraction.

Following trials at Wright Field, a production run of 24 aircraft was approved -- these Y1PB-3As replacing Berliner-Joyce PB-1 biplanes in the 95th Pursuit Squadron.

A second Model 70 prototype was created aimed at the US Navy. This aircraft was powered by Curtiss' new air-cooled Chieftain II engine. Initially designated XF12C-1, the naval fighter had its pilot's position moved forward and a fuel tank inserted between the two cockpits.

After trials at Pax River, the prototype's vertical tail fin was revised and move forward for greater control authority at higher angles of attack. Later, the tail arrangement was changed again -- to a high-mounted horizontal tailplane with a larger, rounded rudder.

Perforated flaps were then added, turning this fighter into a divebomber. This Model 70N entered US Nay service as the SBC-1 Helldiver. After brief shipboard service, the SBC-1s were turned over to the Marine Corps. Carrier squadrons took on SBN-2 (NAF-built Helldivers with Cyclone radials) while Curtiss continued to supply the USMC with Chieftain II-powered Helldivers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 17, 2014, 12:33:57 PM
Nice Curtiss addition, thanks! (so much better than Real World...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 18, 2014, 02:51:45 AM
Nice - the Cohort has a somewhat  IL-2 Sturmovik look to it.  Maybe a ground attack variant is in the future?? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2014, 11:40:18 AM
Nice - the Cohort has a somewhat  IL-2 Sturmovik look to it.  Maybe a ground attack variant is in the future?? ;)

Not a bad idea ... a follow-on from the A-12 Shrike. Hmmm ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2014, 11:45:31 AM
Curtiss Model 74 / XF13C-1 SeaHawk Carrier Fighter Prototypes

The Curtiss Model 74 was designed to answer a 1935 US Navy requirement for a new aircraft carrier fighter. As a Grumman F3F replacement, the Model 74 was up against the Brewster B-239,  Grumman Model 16, and a Seversky private venture, the NF-1 (as well as unbuilt proposals from Vought and Bellanca).

Curtiss' Model 74 sprang directly from the 2-seat Model 70N. The wings were essentially Model  70 outer panels with the centre section deleted. The retractable undercarriage units were moved outboard as were the machine gun bays. The single-seat fighter retained the air-cooled Curtiss Chieftain II powerplant.

The USN had already shown its preference for the Wright R-1820 engine -- this radial powering the other three 1935 entries. In the end, the Navy preferred the Brewster entry (bought as the XF2A-1) and a revised Grumman design (bought as the XF4F-1). But Curtiss was in a position to deliver a prototype fighter sooner than its competition.

The prototype Model 74 flew in early April 1935. Although not their desired type, the Navy was intrigued by the Model 74's constant-speed four-bladed Curtiss Electric propeller. Also of interest were the neat cockpit canopy arrangement and the streamlined carrier hook.

The completed Model 74 prototype was delivered to NAS Patuxent River for testing as the XF13C-1 (dubbed, unofficially, the SeaHawk). Almost immediately, problems were apparent. Directional control was inadequate and the canopy -- although providing excellent visibility -- rattled excessively and, on one occasion, parted company with the aircraft in flight. The XF13C-1 was returned to Curtiss for modifications.

Curtiss redesigned the cockpit canopy altogether and took the opportunity to enlarge the rear fuselage fuel tank (conforming its shape to the revised upper fuselage line). The tailplane was enlarged and the supercharger intake was shortened to address another USN pilot complaints.

The revised XF13C-1A prototype was returned to Pax River for further testing. These tests were of singularly short duration. On its fourth flight, the USN test pilot took the wire in a simulated carrier landing. The aircraft landed safely but the stress of the arrestor wire and abrupt tail strike broke the back of the XF13C-1A.

The remains of the XF13C-1 were returned to Curtiss where the prototype was rebuilt as the Model 74E, an export fighter using simpler construction methods.
______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 22, 2014, 12:53:30 PM
In the end, the Navy preferred the Brewster entry (bought as the XF2A-1) and a revised Grumman design (bought as the XF4F-1).
So, this XF13C of 1935, if selected, could have been as famous a warbird as the Buffalo and Wildcat? Wow!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on January 22, 2014, 03:05:08 PM
Nice plane and nice story too! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on January 22, 2014, 03:27:27 PM
That three illustration series flows purrrfect and so does background  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on January 24, 2014, 05:13:58 AM
I LOVE IT!

Curtis designed the "Corsair" first, screwed it up and reversed the evolution.

By the time Vought gets around to it eh Navy is thoroughly gun-shy and wants nothing to do with something that bears so much of a resemblance. :)

Great work as always.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 24, 2014, 05:42:54 AM
Cheers folks! Here's more on the alt-Curtiss story ...

The Curtiss Model 75 Hawk -- Domestic Success at Last!

In 1934, the US Army Air Corps issued a requirement for a new 'Pursuit' fighter aircraft. The timing could not have been better for Curtiss. Several months earlier, a team led by Don Berlin had begun a private-venture design for a new all-metal single-seat fighter.

The Model 75 employed the outer wing panels of the 2-seat Model 70 Cohort. As on Curtiss' Model  74 naval fighter, these panels were now joined on the centre line with their Boeing-patented retractable undercarriage moved outboard.

The fuselage of the Model 75 was a completely new design. This was a monocoque dural structure joined on the centre line after equipment was installed (including a rear fuselage fuel tank).  Power for the Model 75 was provided by an improved Curtiss V-1647 Curvet liquid-cooled V-12  with a new 2-stage supercharger.

The prototype Model 75 first flew in June 1935 but the MonoHawk-style radiator bath proved 'draggier' than expected. As the USAAC pursuit competition wasn't scheduled to begin until  August, Curtiss has time to tweak  their design. The block-type coolant radiator was removed and replaced but a U-shaped radiator which followed the contours of the bottom of the engine.

The new radiator arrangement reduced drag and increased maximum speed by 8 mph. The revised prototype, as the Curtiss Model 75A (unofficially refered to a the Hawk) was delivered to Wright Field at the end of July 1934. With a proven, reliable engine, the Model 75A was easily able to outperform it competitors fitted  with the USAAC's preferred Wright R-1820 radial (which was experience oil feed problems).

The USAAC accepted the prototype as their XP-36 and ordered a small production run of P-36A  pursuit fighters (Curtiss Model 75A-1s). Production P-36As differed from the prototype in being  fitted with 3-bladed propellers (it being reasoned that this would increase the rate of fire  from the synchronized cowl guns).  All but one of the production fighters were armed with 20mm  Curtiss-Madsen motor cannons (with twin .50-calibre Browning cowl guns and another pair of .30-cal Brownings in their wings). The third production aircraft (Model 75A-2) was armed with three .50-cal Brownings -- one firing through the propeller hub, plus two cowl guns.

___________________________

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 24, 2014, 10:12:23 AM
Elegant designs! but... if the Model 75/P-36 has already an in-line engine, what will justify the P-40 code? A R-2000 or R-2800 engine?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2014, 08:48:38 AM
... if the Model 75/P-36 has already an in-line engine, what will justify the P-40 code? ...

Patience Tophe  :D  However, you might like le contenu de la France that follows ...

Curtiss Success Abroad -- the Model 76 'Export Hawks'

When the Curtiss Model 75 fighter appeared in mid-1935, its performance caused quite a stir. However, US labour costs had already pushed unit costs to almost double that of contempory foreign monoplane fighters. The Model 75's monocoque fuselage structure was also beyond the capabilities of several smaller nations interested in licence construction.

To address these concerns, Don Berlin and team turned their attention to a more economical  fighter for export.  As recounted earlier, the remains of the damaged XF13C-1 naval fighter had been returned to Curtiss. This airframe formed the basis for the Model 76 export fighter (initially known as the Model 74E within Curtiss).

Simpler fuselage construction methods were employed on the Model 76 'Export Hawk'. In place of the monocoque structure of the Model 75, Curtiss returned to the MonoHawk's fabric-covered welded steel tube framework. A similar technique was used for the fixed empennage. The wing, however, retained the Model 75's sophisticated, multi-spar dural structure. But Curtiss offered its potential licencees the option of dometically- or US-built wings to be incorporated with locally-made fuselages and tails.

The prototype Model 76 retained the Model 74N's Chieftain II air-cooled powerplant. That  engine was chosen by Argentina for its Model 76AR 'Conquistador' and by Siam for its fixed-gear Model 76SI (with underwing 20mm Madsen guns). The big order for the 'Export Hawk', however,  came as a surprise even to Curtiss.

In 1938, France established a Commission des Achats in New York to buy US-made armaments. Members of this purchasing commission toured the Curtiss factory in Buffalo, NY where P-36 fighters were being  produced. The prototype Model 76 was also viewed. The cost advantages of the simpler Model 76 were obvious as were the performance benefits of the Model 75. So, the question arose: Why couldn't the Curvet powerplant of the Model 75 been installed in the Model 76 airframe?

France placed orders for 250 Curtiss Model 76FR fighters in three batches (75 x Curvet-powered Model 76FR-1s , 75 x HS 12Y-45-powered Model 76FR-2s, and 100 x Curvet-powered Model 76FR-3s) to augment its lagging Dewoitine D.515 production. The USAAC was somewhat alarmed by the size of this French order, fearing that Curtiss would be unable to meet its P-36 delivery schedule. Initially, the US Government was reluctant to approve this export contract. However, when Curtiss' lawyers pointed out that
both the V-1647 Curvet engine and the Model 76 airframe had been private-ventures paid for by Curtiss, approval for export was quickly granted.
__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 25, 2014, 03:07:32 PM
France placed orders for 250 Curtiss Model 76FR fighters in three batches (75 x Curvet-powered Model 76FR-1s , 75 x HS 12Y-45-powered Model 76FR-2s, and 100 x Curvet-powered Model 76FR-3s)
They are so nice... If I were the President, the order would have been 2,500+750+1,000...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 27, 2014, 12:56:34 PM
Expanding the Breed -- Curtiss Model 75 Hawk Derivatives

Since the collapse of the merger with Wright, Curtiss management had resisted using engines made by  competitiors. This served Curtiss well in the case of the Model 75. However, the Army Air Corps  persisted with requests for a radial-engined Model 75 with which comparisons trails could be made.

With P-36A deliveries well underway, Curtiss finally relented. A P-36A airframe was taken from the  Buffalo production line and adapted to the most well-developed American radial engine suited to fighter aircraft -- the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp. Completed as the Model 75P, the P&W engine was fan-cooled allowing it to be enclosed in a tight-fitting cowling. To get around competitor's  problems with overheated collector rings, Curtiss ran individual exhaust pipes to a fuselage-side vent.

The Model 75P was delivered to Wright Field for trials. Although it remained company-owned, the Model 75P was designated XP-40 for the comparison trials with a service P-36A. For speed trials, both fighters were unarmed and highly polished to gauge their Vmax. The Model 75P performed well in its trials but offered little advantage over the production P-36A. By comparison, the 'Pratt Hawk' would be inferior in armament, having to give up the Madsen motor cannon.

No Army Air Corps orders were forthcoming for the P-40 but the Model 75P served as an aerodynamic  testbed for Curtiss, trialling clipped wing tips, more streamlined tailwheel enclosures, a bulged  canopy, and other attempts at improving the Model 75 line.

Turbocharged -- The High-Altitiude Curtiss XP-37 'TurboHawk'

The Army Air Corps was also interested in turbocharged, high-altitude interceptors. The planned  fighter was the radical Bell XP-39. But the USAAC wanted a simpler backup design. Curtiss was asked to provide a turbocharged P-36 derivative. This appeared as the Model 75T 'TurboHawk'.

To create the Model 75T, Don Berlin adapted the XP-36A airframe to take a General electric 'Form 10' turbocharger in the rear fuselage. Extended exhaust pipes fed the turbocharger and an intercooler was squeezed in between the turbo and the repositioned radio compartment.

The turbocharger proved unreliable and, eventually, suffered a main bearing failure. The 'Form 10'  unit was replaced by GE's improved B-2 turbocharger. This production-quality turbo was superior but there were still reliability issues. Nonetheless, the USAAAC wished to press on and requested that the prototype Model 75T be transferred to Wright Field at Dayton, OH, for evaluation as the XP-37.

After taking off from Buffalo Airport on 13 May 1937 enroute for Wright Field, the XP-37's turbo began overspeeding. The pilot, Herbert O. Fisher, throttled back and turned for Buffalo but the prototype was soon rocked by a catastrophic turbine failure. With the tail control lines severed, the pilot had no option but to abandon the aircraft. Fisher hit the silk and the by-now flaming XP-37 was lost in Lake Erie.
_______________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 27, 2014, 01:08:10 PM
I'll take a dozen of the top one, please!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 27, 2014, 11:38:53 PM
Great enrichment to the Curtiss Family (Beauty Department) :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on January 28, 2014, 01:11:09 AM
mmmm and then the Russians found out about the "TurboHawk" and told  Nikolai Polikarpov to design something as sleek (MiG-1 which was developed into MiG-3).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2014, 12:06:34 PM
Thanks folks! If there's interest, I'll return to the wartime Curtisses later ...

I'll take a dozen of the top one, please!

Cheers Logan! Were I doing it again, I think the XP-40 would get an extended rear fuselage (she looks a little nose heavy with that engine-cooling fan up front).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2014, 12:09:30 PM
The Bowless Arrow -- Fiat's G.48 Freccia

The first Fiat monoplane fighter design came from Giuseppe Gabrielli. But  Ing. Gabrielli was dodged by engine availability. His first foray into monoplane fighters was the Fiat A.37-powered G.48 (I). But this V-12 (a 26 L derivative of the A.30 stroked to 152 mm) was cancelled in favour of more advanced engine designs.

The G.48 (II) was redesigned to accept Fiat's A.38 RI.C.15/45, a 1200 hp inverted 16-cylinder type derived from the earlier, 24-cylinder AS.6 racing engine. A functioning engineering mockup of the G.48 (II) was completed in time to be exhibited at the Milan Air Show in Dec 1936.

The 'prototype' G.48 (II) was a bit of Fascisti showmanship. Neither the airframe nor the engine were airworthy -- the latter being little more than a dressed-up block. Fiat would struggle for several years with the A.38 V-16 but the G.48 needed a functioning engine.

The true prototype G.48 flew on 23 March 1937 from Caselle, Turin. This aircraft was powered by a 900 hp Isotta Fraschini Asso Caccia L.121 R.C.40 V-12.* This was a heavy engine so the coolant radiator was moved from under the nose to beneath the cockpit to re-establish the c/g.
___________________________________

* An inverted version of the L.121 version of the Asso, the A.120 R.C.40, was originally planned.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on January 30, 2014, 12:15:58 PM
Cheers Logan! Were I doing it again, I think the XP-40 would get an extended rear fuselage (she looks a little nose heavy with that engine-cooling fan up front).

By the way, did you figure out the scale on that R-1830?  It looked a little small, to be honest.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 30, 2014, 12:44:50 PM
Nice G.48, almost as beautiful as a G.55 :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 06, 2014, 04:59:54 AM
By the way, did you figure out the scale on that R-1830?  It looked a little small, to be honest.

You may be right Logan. I wanted a much tighter cowling (more La-5 than P-36) but just guesstimated the size for that image.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 06, 2014, 05:02:31 AM
'If it weren't for bad luck, Giuseppe Gabrielli wouldn't have no luck at all.'

Ing. Gabrielli's problems with engine availability continued with his G.48 design. The inverted Asso Caccia A.120 R.C.40 proved overweight and was abandoned. Count Ciano's attempts to normalize relations with Czechoslovakia suggested the possibility of licenced production of the Avia 1000, an HS.12Y development. Accordingly, the Fiat G.48 (II) mockup was adapted to the Czech upright V12 engine.

To speed the process, Fiat began small-scale production of the G.48 (IIAv) at the CMASA factory in Marina di Pisa. But Italo-Czechoslovak relations collapsed and with them went any chance of producing the Avia 1000 in Italy. CMASA found itself with a line of semi-completed G.48 fighters and no engines.

CMASA designer, Manlio Stiavelli, saw an opportunity to test a catapult fighter concept for a Servizio Aeronautico della Regia Marina requirement. CMASA had already provided the Regia Marina with a floatfighter using the G.48 (I) wing, the Fiat/CMASA ICR.36. If the proposed  catapult fighter design was successful, a float version might also eclipse the ICR.36.

The Fiat/CMASA G.48C (for Catapultibile) used the same Fiat A.30 engine as the ICR.36. The fighter was underpowered but successfully proved the catapult fighter concept. The Regia Marina requested that the remaining 12 G.48 (IIAv) airframes be completed as G.48Cs to familiarize the Squadriglie Caccia Marittima with catapult fighters. The converted G.48Cs formed a training  unit at the Pola training school at Puntisella. The aircraft illustrated here is the prototype G.48C conversion at Marina di Pisa prior to being transferred to the Pola school.
_____________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on February 06, 2014, 05:52:42 AM
Ah, lovely.  The top one looks very much like the Arsenal VG-33.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 06, 2014, 12:52:51 PM
Beautiful family, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2014, 10:15:42 AM
The top one looks very much like the Arsenal VG-33.

Thanks Logan ... that was the look I was going for.

Fiat/CMASA G.49 - A Second Arrow in the Quiver

With its old Fiat A.30 engine, the Fiat/CMASA G.48C catapult trainer was never going to be an operational aircraft. Knowing the Regia Marina's preference for air-cooled engines, CMASA designer, Manlio Stiavelli, proposed a G.48 variant re-engined with the only available Fiat powerplant with a reputation for reliability -- the A.74 14-cylinder radial.

The RM agreed to Stiavelli's proposal but wanted to test this new model as a potential replacement for the now-outdated ICR.36 seaplane. Accordingly, CMASA adapted a G.48C airframe for both the A.74 radial and for modernized versions of the ICR.36's twin floats. The finished float fighter, designated ICS.49, was delivered to the Pola training school at
Puntisella. The RM was also expressed interested in a 'catapultibile' version of the same airframe. However, at this point, the Ministero della Aeronautica intervened. The Regia Marina had lost its chance at a new fighter design.

(Top) The prototype prior to its transfer to the Pola training school at Puntisella (and before having its SAFAR A.R.C.1 radio receiver installed).

Giuseppe Gabrielli had also been developing his fighter design, the Daimler-Benz powered G.50. The G.50 prototype was being demonstrated to the Regia Aeronautica at Guidonia and production of this refined version had already begun at the Fiat factory in Turin. Stiavelli quickly adapted his A.74-powered design to the airframe of the G.50. The result was the CS.49bis.

The CS.49bis was ordered for the RA's Gruppi d'Assalto as a partial replacement for the unstasfactory Breda 65. The Sottoserie 0 CS.49bis were conversions of Fiat-built airframes. For the Serie 1, CMASA combined Turin-built components with Marina di Pisa-built forward fuselages and engine mounts.

The CS.49bis Serie 1 were armed with four 7.7mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns (two in the cowl and one in each outer wing panel) and fitted with a centre-line bomb rack. The Serie 2 was uparmed with two 12.7mm Breda-SAFATs requiring twin bumps in the cowl (earning the type the nickname of "l'urto"). The Serie 2 could be fitted with twin underwing bomb racks or a single centre section rack. The Serie 3 reintroduced the wing 7.7mm guns but at the expense of the wing rack option. The main production type, the Serie 4, returned to the Serie 2 armament arrangement but incorporated some cockpit armour and a dust-filter for the supercharger intake.

(Bottom) A Fiat/CMASA CS.50bis (Serie 2) of 159ª Squadriglia, 12º Gruppo, 50° Stormo d'Assalto, Libya, Nov-Dec 1940. Special markings include the Squadriglia emblem of Disney's Ezechiele Lupo ('Zeke Wolf' aka il lupo cattivo) on the tail fin together with "Antonio Dell'Oro" (in memory of the fallen Squadriglia Commander, Capitano Dell'Oro).
______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on February 12, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
I REALLY like the float version... very sexy!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on February 13, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
R-1830 varied from a little over 45 inches to 48 inches in diameter, F-series V-1710 was 37.6 inches high.
So that's a rough start for engine dimensions, however those numbers do not directly transfer to airframe cowl
lines as how the engine is mounted and how closely it is cowled determine the actual mould line. P & W engineer
Andrew Wilgoos hated the oversized nacelles of the Douglas C-74 for the R-4360, sarcastically suggesting they
use the extra area as a luggage compartment.

P & W had been working on improved higher power R-1535 in the pre-war period, canceling development
after the 950hp -64 (forcing Grumman to change to R-1820s for the F5F) to concentrate on the R-1830 and
R-2800. So one wonders what a two-speed/two-stage or turbo-supercharged R-1535 could have done. The
R-1535 were ~ 44 inches in diameter.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 18, 2014, 09:48:32 AM
Thanks Jon ... interesting stuff. A  two-stage R-1535 would've been interesting (although not much saved on diameter, I guess).

Here's another Fiat development. No backstory typed out yet ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 18, 2014, 11:30:43 AM
Gorgeous! :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2014, 04:12:23 AM
Thanks Tophe! Here's a pair for Silver Fox ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on February 27, 2014, 04:37:23 AM
Very pretty, apophenia!  That bottom one is especially attractive.  It looks like Schneider goes to war!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 01, 2014, 12:05:22 PM
Thanks Logan!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on March 05, 2014, 06:22:57 AM
Very nice!

The Schneider goes to war feel comes across very strong.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 05, 2014, 08:23:49 AM
Yes, belated congratulations for the beautiful idro with in line engine, so beautiful... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 15, 2014, 10:38:34 AM
A Mini-Skycrane -- the Kelowna Flightcraft KF-61 Krane

Anticipating the retirement of US Navy SH-3A ASW helicopters, Kelowna Flightcraft began detail design of civilianized Sea King variants in 1983. The KF Fire King was a dedicated fire fighting conversion while the KF-61 was a passenger or utility transport.

In 1985, work began on a more radical rebuild of surplus Sea Kings. In effect, this was to be a reduced-scale version of Sikorsky's S-64 Skycrane. Emerging in 1987 as the KF-61 Krane, this heavy-lifter was seen as a natural for heli-logging and construction work.

Kelowna Flightcraft partnered with Fleet Aerospace of Fort Erie, ON which provided the new fuselage 'plank' to which KF attached a suitably modified SH-3A nose section and drivetrain. Fleet also began work on a new all-composite nose section for the KF-61C, a proposed Krane development with uprated Rolls Royce Gnome H.1400-2 turbines.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, and Something Composite

Fleet became convinced that aged S-61 airframes were not that popular in the civilian market. However, a healthy supply of surplus Sea King parts existed (and would grow as more SH-3s were replaced by new SH-60s). The answer, it was decided, was to marry those parts to a new, composite airframe as the FA.161 Fulmar.

Although aimed primarily at offshore platform work, Fleet elected to eliminate the S-61 'boat hull'. Instead, a more conventional tricycle landing gear was adopted. Above the roofline, the FA.161CU (Civil Utility) was identical to the S.61 and Series I aircraft re-used Sea King tail structures as well. The concept was a success and orders from civilian operators began to flow in.

For the FA.161, Fleet re-partnered with Kelowna Flightcraft and, to gain Sea King expertise, allied itself with Westland Helicopters of Weston-super-Mare, UK. KF did much of the surplus 'parts sourcing' at its Kelowna facility and rebuilt S-61 tail units at its Hamilton, ON, facility. Westland would handle FA.161 exports outside North America and supply parts -- most particularly, composite main and tail rotor assemblies.

[To be continued ...]
-----------------------------------
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on March 15, 2014, 10:59:02 AM
Interesting idea. I like the look of the Sea King crane. It's so ugly, you just have to love it!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 15, 2014, 12:26:20 PM
I love those two, nicely completing the S-61 family... :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on March 15, 2014, 12:26:59 PM
Sea King crane --- really clever concept :)
Like how it looks for what it is.  Ya got the grey cells working on that one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 15, 2014, 01:23:21 PM
Nice stuff Apo, one note though, the reason Helipro, and others, were doing the shortening
of L and N model airliners for the logging market (I worked on the Helipro project in the mid-90s)
is because Transport Canada would not allow ex US military SH-3As to operate in Canada. The
military paperwork wasn't up to snuff, in their opinion, and that model had never received a civil certification, unlike the airliner variants.



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PR19_Kit on March 15, 2014, 03:26:03 PM
Nice stuff Apo, one note though, the reason Helipro, and others, were doing the shortening
of L and N model airliners for the logging market (I worked on the Helipro project in the mid-90s)
is because Transport Canada would not allow ex US military SH-3As to operate in Canada. The
military paperwork wasn't up to snuff, in their opinion, and that model had never received a civil certification, unlike the airliner variants.

Luckily in WhiffWorld all such paperwork is consinged to the waste bin IMMEDIATELY on printing and is ignored.  :) ;) :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on March 16, 2014, 12:17:19 AM
Here is a story about converting a Cobra to a civilian heavy lift helicopter.
http://www.helis.com/stories/mil2civ.php (http://www.helis.com/stories/mil2civ.php)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 16, 2014, 10:56:35 AM
Thanks folks!

Jon: Interesting detail, thanks for that! For the sake of the backstory, would that TC ban apply only to complete ex-SH-3 airframes or to their components as well?

kerick: Wow! Thanks for the link. Converting Cobras to heavy-lift. Now why didn't I think of that ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 16, 2014, 11:00:30 AM
Military Service for 'Canadianized' Sea King Derivatives

In 1993 the Government of Canada cancelled its CH-124 Sea King replacement orders for military EH101s -- CH-148 Petrel shipboard ASW aircraft and CH-149 Chimo search-and-rescue helicopters. It was then suggested that the Sea King-derived KF-61 Krane might suit as a shipboard VertRep aircraft to take some of the strain off of the aging CH-124B fleet.

To test this proposal, Kelowna Flightcraft loaned its demonstrator KF-61 to DND. Initially designated CH-148, the heavy-lift helicopter was assigned to HOTEF at CFB Shearwater for testing. Although the 'Sea Krane' could hoist a heavier load than the standard CH-124B, the lifter would not easily fit into existing shipboard hangars. For a production type (by now redesignated CH-161K), KF proposed a folding tailboom to shorten length and a 'kneeling' undercarriage to reduce height.

"bid most fairly for utility, honour, and happiness"

Politically, the most pressing problem was the need for a new SAR helicopter. To fill this role, the GoC adopted the Fleet FA.161 Series I aircraft as the CSR-149 Guillemot.  As with the Krane, the Guillemot designation was quickly changed, in this case to CH-161S (although the 9' series aircraft serials stuck). Other than military avionics and SAR equipment, the CH-161S was essentially the same as the civil FA.161CU.

The Canadian Forces saw the CH-161S as a limited success. It was familiar to mechanics but rather short on range compared with the retiring CH-113 Labradors. This would be alleviated somewhat with the introduction of the CH-161S-2 upgrades which included sponson pylons for new long-range fuel tanks.

[To be continued ...]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 17, 2014, 04:28:23 AM
'Canadianized' Sea King Derivatives - Utility Fulmars in Camouflage

While the CH-161S Guillemot SAR helicopter was entering Canadian Forces service, Fleet Aerospace was preparing the aerodynamically improved FA.161 Series II. The Government of Canada saw further military potential for the Fulmar but production at Fleet's modest Fort Erie facility was too slow. Accordingly, the GoC swung a deal with Bell Textron Canada.

In compensation for reduced orders of CH-146 Griffons, Bell would perform final assembly of military FA.161 helicopters.*  The first Mirabel-assembled FA.161 variants were 10 CH-161A Fulmar shipboard utility aircraft (known to Fleet as the FA.161MU Seafarer, the Navy prefered the original, bilingual name).

The CH-161As were followed by 10 essentially similar CH-161B-1 Falcons, the first order for Canadian Army FA.161UHs to complement the smaller CH-146 Griffons. Both CH-161A and CH-161B could be fitted with door-mounted C6 GPMG machineguns. The naval Fulmar carried a Wescam MX-10 electro-optical turret as standard. This E/O was an optional fit for the Army's Falcon utility helicopters.

------------

* Bell would also see some CH-146 orders shifted to B412s for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 17, 2014, 06:02:28 AM
It depends on the component, but, yes it does for some. Not that the law has stopped some
Canadian firms from using Bell and Sikorsky parts of questionable origin.
 :-\



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 17, 2014, 02:18:03 PM
Interesting versions, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2014, 05:16:29 AM
Thanks folks!

Son of Sea King gains his Sea Legs -- the CH-161C Neptune

Ironically, the most challenging Canadian Forces role to fill was that of shipboard helicopter. There was no difficulty in shipboard operations -- these were already being performed by the CH-161 Fulmar Maritime Utility helicopters. Instead, the problem was an overly ambitious approach to ASW mission systems.

After considerable delays with purpose-designed mission kit, Fleet was instructed to bypass Maritime Helicopter Project sub-contractors and install refurbished HELTAS ASW gear from retiring CH-124B-2 Sea Kings. This compromise shipboard helicopter entered service as the 'Interim Maritime Helicopter' or CH-161C-1 Neptune (another bilingual name to distinguish 'C models from the utility 'As).

A modest tweek to electronics was performed under NAUP, the Neptune Avionics Upgrade Program. However, operational experience was showing that Neptune weight-gain needed to be countered with greater power. Unfortunately, General Electric had ceased production of the T58 engines in 1984. A new powerplant was needed to realize the full potential of the CH-161C.

A mid-life program -- NIMP, the Neptune Incremental Modernization Project -- introduced 1,660 shp Rolls-Royce Gnome H.1400-2 turbines as recommended by Westlands. This increase in power was absorbed by broader composite main rotor blades and a new, 6-bladed tail rotor. The most noticeable airframe changes under NIMP were the introduction of twin sponson pylons. The result was the CH-161C-2.

The final phase of NIMP introduced entirely new mission electronics, dramatically changing the profile of the Neptune's nose. The final phase NIMP upgrade also introduced an FA.161 Series III-style sliding door on the portside. Fully NIMP upgraded Neptunes were redesignated CH-161C-3.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Talos on March 19, 2014, 10:08:20 AM
I really like that Neptune. Surprisingly nice-looking, very balanced design. The nose addition is perfect and really changes the whole feel of the chopper right there. Superb!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2014, 10:35:33 AM
Cheers Talos!

Rotory-Wing Support for the 'Men in Black' -- FA.161 SOAH/CH-161D

The FA.161 Series III portside sliding door had been introduced on the handful of CH-161Ds created for CF SOF. Technically Series IIAs, these mystery aircraft were hand-assembled at Fleet and seem never to have been assigned serials. As delivered, the CH-161D-1 (aka CH-161 SOA) was powered by 1,535 shp R-R Gnome H.1400-1s (and could be readily distinguished by their 6-bladed tail rotors).

Assigned to 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron at CFB Petawawa, the details behind the SOA Falcons are a little sketchy. The CH-161D-2 appears to denote a defensive aids suite upgrade. The CH-161D-3 conversion involved the installation of more powerful Gnome H.1400-2 turbines and some additional optional equipment (including, as shown, an inflight refuelling probe and DIRCM pods).

The first actual Series IIIs into Canadian Forces service were CH-161B-3s for TacHel Aviation. These aircraft also had Gnome H.1400-1s and could be fitted with an optional second door C6 GPMG. Pylons and exhaust signation suppressors were also options (though rarely fitted). Half of the second Falcon order was filled with CH-161B-3 and the entire third order was comprised of Series III aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 19, 2014, 08:26:08 PM
Beautiful!!  Perhaps a re-engining at some point.  I believe the CT7/T700 would be adequate as would the equivalent engine from PWAC; the latter might also be an easier sell.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 20, 2014, 12:15:01 AM
Cool stuff.

For reference here is a Sikorsky GA of the S-61N, note the different tail pylon of the L and N,
the shortened models flying around, VHI, HeliJet, Hayes etc., have that pylon:

(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/S61N_01.png)

I also have a stations/waterlines drawing along with details of the pylon, L model fixed gear,
bulkheads,etc., all copied from the structural repair manual.

Another drawing I need to scan is a GA of the Shortsky conversion I made with
old school cut-n-paste + Xerox methods.
 ;D

A couple technical things, from sta.32 to sta.110 under the cockpit floor is the E & E bay, which
is stuffed full of avionics. Behind the flight deck, on the right side, is the control closet with the
rotor control servos and AFCS electronics.

And some trivia on the logging machines, the cockpit side windows are bulged out so the pilot
can look down at the ground and some machines have a small auxiliary instrument panel mounted
on the left side in the pilot's line of vision so the engines can be monitored while looking at the
ground. They are also primarily flown from the left seat, rather than the right, when logging.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 20, 2014, 04:18:58 AM
Beautiful!!  Perhaps a re-engining at some point.  I believe the CT7/T700 would be adequate as would the equivalent engine from PWAC; the latter might also be an easier sell.

Evan: You have anticipated me :)

Jon: Great stuff! And I'd love to see that S-61 station drawing.

You've answered one of my questions -- can the starboard sliding door be placed directly aft of the flight deck. Answer: not if that control closet stays in situ.

For my next incarnation, I wanted to have sliding doors on both sides. I guess they'll have to be at least slightly staggered (maybe a good thing?).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 20, 2014, 04:22:19 AM
Step-Son of Sea King -- Fleet Aerospace's FA.261 Super Fulmar

The FA.161 had local military success but civil sales were modest. Competition came from Aérospatiale's AS 332L Super Puma and Fleet Aerospace has hard pressed to escape trade show jibes about recycling 'ancient technologies'.  Another problem originated with the Goverment of Canada which was resistant to funding further development of an airframe relying on imported engines.

The initial appeal of the FA.161 had been its proven drivetrain and rotors. Now those very features had become a liability. Fleet Aerospace's solution was to find a new, Canadian-made engine for its now-proven Fulmar airframe. The initial choice was a turboshaft version of the 1,590 shp PW115. But Pratt & Whitney Canada's elected to shelf that engine in favour of more powerful variants. So, a turboshaft PW120 derated to 1,650 shp was settled upon for the FA.261 Super Fulmar.*

To prototype its new concept, Fleet Aerospace began conversion of an FA.161MU airframe that had been returned to the OEM after suffering a major engine fire. CH-161A serial 161912 was fitted with twin, rear-mounted PW120TS turbines and a new transmission. To balance this new powerplant arrangement, the forward fuselage was extended (and an enlarged sliding door installed). Thus modified, the redubbed FA.161PW flew to test the engine installation.

After concluding its test period, the FA.161PW was shipped to Yeovil where Westland re-engined it with twin 1,500 shp Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322 engines. This engine was to be the European standard for FA.261s (although the type was offered assembled with PW120TS powerplants as an option for the European market).
________________________________

* The PW120 was chosen as the basis for a turboshaft variant for its wider use in Canada (compared with the PW118).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 27, 2014, 09:55:53 AM
Got inspired by Jon's coverage of the unbuilt Harry Miller/Keith Rider V16-powered racer.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.0)

Harry Miller also built V16s for Ford's 1935 Indy 500 submission. So, I decided to 'Fordify' the Rider-Miller design as a sportster/fighter aircraft...

Top - A sportster with an IV-1200, evaporation cooling, conventional open cockpit, longer undercarriage legs, and Ford Flivver-style rudder-steered tailwheel.

Bottom - The revised Ford F1600 fighter, a bid for a USAAC light fighter. Upright V-1200 engine, Prestone cooler, larger tailplane, and a more conventional tailwheel.

Scrap view - Ford F1600 fighter as revised with a collector tube replacing individual exhaust stubs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 27, 2014, 12:57:48 PM
Very nice stuff.  :)

One little note, the 1935 Miller-Fords were powered by Ford V-8s, pretty much
standard flatties turned back-to-front driving the front wheels. Miller and his
crew designed the cars, but not the engines.
 :)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 27, 2014, 03:25:38 PM
Very nice stuff.  :)
I agree!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on March 28, 2014, 06:21:58 AM
As the Flivver is one of my all time favourite Golden Era aircraft...

BRAVO SIR! BRAVO! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 29, 2014, 04:52:49 AM
Cheers 'Fox!

Jon: Thanks for the correction. I had confused the supercharged 303 V16 with the 308 V8! If anyone want to further explore this Miller muddle ...
http://www.rickcarey.com/Catalog%20Descriptions/RM%20LA%20052502%20Miller%20V16.htm (http://www.rickcarey.com/Catalog%20Descriptions/RM%20LA%20052502%20Miller%20V16.htm)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 29, 2014, 05:32:12 AM
Sweet!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2014, 06:18:55 AM
Building Dewoitines in America

I was surprised to read that Ford had been contracted by France to license-build an Allison V-1710-powered Dewoitine D.520 development in the US. So, this is more of an 'almost-was' rather than a true whif ...

I moved the dates back so that the first Ford-built D.522C.1s were arriving in France just before the Armistice. The D.522 would have been weakly armed compared with the D.520 (having lost the 20mm cannon). I'm imagining the Armée de l'Air issuing them to Groupes Aériens d'Observation to act as tactical recce fighters.

The Aéronavale was also expecting deliveries of D.520s. Instead, I've got the navy receiving D.522s which were issued to Escadrilles AC1 and AC2 (Avions de Chasse).

Then the whif starts. In the RW, Ford was also working on a new, fuel-injected V-12. This engine was to have the same dimension as the Royce-Rolls Merlin and similar construction (aluminum block and heads) but would have had dual overhead camshafts.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5494.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5494.0.html)

In my whif, Ford accelerates development of their V-12 to replace Allison V-1710C-15s. To save on development time, the Ford V-12 was adapted to take the Szydlowski-Planiol S-39-H3 supercharger from the D.520's Hispano-Suiza 12Y-45 engine. The opportunity was also taken to allow for the installation of an HS404 moteur-canon firing through the hub of a Ratier 1060 propeller.

In early May 1940, production at Ford Aircraft Division's Oakland County plant shifted to the new fighter -- dubbed D.523 by SNCAM and the AdlA. Ford had its own designation system.  Ford applied Type 15 to the D.520 (later F.150 to follow French designation patterns). Ford-built D.522s became the Type 15A/F.151. The Type 15B/F.152 was a still-born plan to build Merlin-powered D.520s. So, the Ford V-12-powered aircraft became the Type 15B/F.153.

[To be continued ...]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 02, 2014, 06:33:26 AM
Very beautiful new silhouettes. I love your parallel universe :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on April 02, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
Excellent as always. I can't believe how good looks the lower one with(out) markings.  :)

I also must add that you're confused me a little with those choppers. I'm not saying that they aren't good, but I'm the old-fashioned guy and I'm always happy to see something from the Golden Age or WWII.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 05, 2014, 12:04:24 AM
The Ford V-12 valve gear was fairly 'Miller-ish', if you catch my drift.  ;)

BTW the S-P supercharger was one of the weaknesses of the H12Y, it was not the best of designs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 05, 2014, 03:38:30 PM
Thanks folks. Vuk: My preference is for 1930-1945 too. But it is an on-going puzzle to me why helicopter producers have such difficulty getting completely new models into service these days. It made me wonder why there haven't been more military evolutions of older designs.

Jon: The Miller V-16 was what made me think of the unbuilt Ford V-12 ;)

Thanks for the tip on the Szydlowski-Planiol. I went with that design mostly because the Ford's supercharger hung down so far (RW, maybe intended for bombers?). In any case, it wasn't going to fit easily on to a Dewoitine!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 05, 2014, 03:40:17 PM
Ford-Built Dewoitines after the Fall of France

The Ford F.152s in production as D.522s Forbans (Pirates) could not be delivered after the Fall of France. These fighters were stockpiled at Ford Aircraft Division's Oakland County facility until a new buyer could be found.

The cannon-armed F.153 prototype was tested the USAAC and it was suggested that the Allison-engined F.152s could be employed as fighter trainers. However the US Government was more interested in buying combat types.

Interest in the F.152 was first expressed by a purchasing commission of the Chinese Nationalist government. After trials in Michigan, the 24 completed F.152s (including the prototype were quietly shipped to China. These fighters equipped ROCAF 5th Group's 17th Squadron (replacing Dewoitine D.510s). Illustrated is a well-worn Chinese F.152 at Kunming in May 1942 (note that the lower undercarriage leg covers have been removed to clear mud).

Ford had anticipated that the USAAC would not be interested in the F.153 beyond its cannon armament. In an attempt to improve the breed, Ford undertook a redesign of the fighter. For the F.154, the Dewoitine fuselage was rearranged - the cockpit being moved forward and the fuel tank moved aft (in the style of the Curtiss P-36A). The prototype was delivered to Wright Field as the XP-45A* in September 1940.

The prototype F.154 was unarmed but it was intended that production versions be fitted with 4 x .30" wing guns and a .75" motor-cannon. Designed specifically for the V-1640 Fortis engine, the cannon fired a .75" x .325" HE round (making the gun lighter and more compact than the 20mm HS404).
------------------------

* NB: The RW P-45 designation was applied to what emerged at the P-39C Airacobra.

[To be continued ...]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 05, 2014, 05:07:56 PM
I love this moving back and forth of the canopy (while I prefer the rear position). I have played like that with a P-51.
Thanks for this further enrichment of the poor D.520 family...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2014, 06:25:01 AM
Foxhunter - Ford-Built Dewoitines in RAF Service

Although the Ford F.154 was of no interest to the US military, the RAF was happy to accept it. The Foxhunter Mk.IA entered service in late 1941 (all being  desert-adapted Mk.Is). Powered by the V-1640 Fortis engine, the early Foxhunters were armed with 4 x .303" wing guns and the .75" motor-cannon.

(Top) A Foxhunter Mk.IA AK523 of No 5 Sqn SAAF flown by its CO, Major Andrew Duncan, DFC. This aircraft had some field modifications -- tailwheel locked down to ease maintenance and a .50" nose gun to simplify ammunition supply.

Foxhunter GL+R was shot down south of Acroma on 31 May 1942 by Oblt. Otto Schulz in a Bf 109F of II/JG27.

The Foxhunter Mk.V (F.157) represented a major redesign of the Ford fighter. An extra forward fuselage bay was inserted to accommodate a broader-chord laminar-flow wing. In the Foxhunter Mk.V, the extra fuselage length allowed use of the RAF's preferred 20mm Hispano gun firing through the propellor hub. The Foxhunter Mk.VI reverted to the more compact .75" motor-cannon which allowed for an additional small fuel tank.

(Bottom) A Foxhunter Mk.VI of No 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron upon arrival in Corsica in late October 1943. No 237 later took part in Operation Dragoon, the Allied invasion of southern France, where Free French Dewoitine D.520s were encountered.

[Fin]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2014, 08:15:46 AM
Sweet!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on April 11, 2014, 09:36:51 AM
Very pretty (in a good way)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 11, 2014, 12:28:44 PM
Beautiful result, once again :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on April 11, 2014, 06:52:49 PM
Beautiful!! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on April 12, 2014, 06:58:39 AM
WOW! The Foxhunter is just stunning!

Great work as always.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 23, 2014, 07:37:05 AM
Thanks folks. Something a bit more modern this time ... extending the E-9 family for TF-ODIN-E.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 23, 2014, 09:06:14 AM
A DHC-8 full of electronics? That could be a great entry in the group build "The Snoops, Sensors, Spooks, & Spies etc GB"
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=52.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=52.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on April 23, 2014, 12:37:42 PM
^^ What he said.  By the way, I love the Dewoitines.  So pretty.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on April 25, 2014, 06:57:54 PM
The Foxhunters look great
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on April 26, 2014, 01:27:05 AM
I keep imagining the 530 with a RR Kestrel or Peregrine.  And this being me there has to be an Australian link somewhere.  Maybe Australian production set up to supply French Indochina forces in attempt to fend off the Japanese?  Kestrel selected as it had been in production in Australia for locally produced Hawker Furies and Demons, switching to the Peregrine as when the RAAF selected the Whirlwind.  Of course with the fall of France the Dewoitines ended up in RAAF service and defending Singapore and Malaya.

Sorry for the thread highjack  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on April 26, 2014, 05:41:22 PM
A DHC-8 full of electronics? That could be a great entry in the group build "The Snoops, Sensors, Spooks, & Spies etc GB"
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=52.0[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=52.0[/url])


Boeing tried to make that happen when they still owned DeHavilland Canada.

It was a maritime patrol aircraft called the Triton and it was based on the "Gonzo" navigation trainer version of the Dash 8. Boeing couldn't get the Canadian Forces interested in it and the project was cancelled.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 27, 2014, 03:21:12 AM
That would be this one:

Quote
Boeing realized  that this 'Gonzo' layout could be readily adapted to the maritime patrol role. Adding bubble windows for observers and fuselage side armaments racks. Boeing dubbed the 1986 maritime patrol Dash 8 derivative the Triton. For ASW, Triton was to have 4 underwing pylons and  2 fuselage hardpoints (for Harpoon or Exocet missiles ). A MAD tail 'stinger' was to be installed along with the usual maritime search radar and other sensors.

Fully equipped, the Triton's endurance was to be more than 11 hours.  Boeing offered their Triton as a general maritime patrol aircraft  based on a short-bodied DHC-8-200 airframe and a stretched-fuselaged Dash 8M-300 ASW Triton. In the absence of Canadian Forces interest in this proposed series, it is small wonder that no export orders for Triton were forthcoming. Boeing dropped the Triton concept and, shortly afterwards, sold off  De Havilland Canada.

Boeing of  Canada Ltd.'s interest in its de Havilland Division only lasted a half decade. In 1992, Boeing finally found a buyer for DHC – Bombardier Aerospace of  Dorval, PQ – which continued Dash 8 production as their Q Series.  Bombardier has made a few token efforts at promoting the Q Series airframe for maritime patrol.  But it has been the systems integration specialists that have actually delivered in that area. In the US, Sierra Research produced the E-9A Widget adaptation for the USAF. Most of the Dash 8/Q Series adaptations for maritime patrol (or surveillance) have been for Coast Guards and other non-military users. So, Boeing of  Canada was on the right track. They had just pitched to the wrong customers.


Source (http://www.casr.ca/ai-dash8-q100-special-mission-military.htm)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2014, 10:57:13 AM
That's the one   ;D

Tophe has prompted an entry into the "The Snoops, Sensors, Spooks, & Spies etc GB". This time, the electro-Dash 8s are in Australia (including a pair of 'Gonzo'-link entries  ;)

One is up now: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 29, 2014, 07:42:29 AM
Next installment in the RAAF Project Wairi story ...
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.msg70157#msg70157 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.msg70157#msg70157)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on April 29, 2014, 03:23:49 PM
Ok, A!

Now it's time for You to admit that somewhere, out there, You're secretly running some undercover aircraft industry  :)

And if GTX once again says that this is classified info, I know he's plotting with You  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 29, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
No comment...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 30, 2014, 03:57:13 AM
Sorry Vuk,
there is no aviation industry on the Sunshine Coast of B.C., it's all aging hippies and
yuppie vacation lodges. The only smells are fish, fir trees and cannabis.
Repeat there is nothing to see or find. Don't bother looking, as there's nothing to
see. Remember there is nothing to see.
Now assume the lotus position and repeat 'nothing to see, nothing to see ...'




Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on April 30, 2014, 02:52:18 PM
 :icon_meditation:

... nothing to see... nothing to see... (like this?)... nothing to see... nothing to see...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2014, 04:01:40 AM
Yes, repeat the mantra ... Om!

As Jon siad, nuthin' here but aging yuppies and fading hippies. So don't even think of looking in those 'abandoned' boatsheds!

And besides, the local runway is only 2,400 feet long.

BTW: Ignore this -->  http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/dash8-floats-deployed-3.jpg (http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/dash8-floats-deployed-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on May 01, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
2400? Probably some mini golf yard...

Ignore what?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2014, 05:53:48 AM
Ignore what?

Exactly  ;)   Anyway, what possible use could hippies and aged yuppies have for a Dash 8 on floats anyway?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on May 03, 2014, 06:39:28 AM
Ignore what?

Exactly  ;)   Anyway, what possible use could hippies and aged yuppies have for a Dash 8 on floats anyway?

Bring in ecological fruit juice?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Weaver on May 03, 2014, 09:59:11 AM
I love the Alison-engined D.522s: very modelable!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on May 03, 2014, 10:50:52 AM
I love the Alison-engined D.522s: very modelable!  :)
Yes agree I though I had today today when at my local toy / model shop and saw a Tamiya Dewoitine on the same shelf as a raft 1/48 Alison Mustangs and P-40s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 04, 2014, 09:19:45 AM
Next installment for the "The Snoops, Sensors, Spooks, & Spies etc GB" ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.msg70449#msg70449 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4345.msg70449#msg70449)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 22, 2014, 02:07:48 AM
First installment for 'Super Boomer' - The Commonwealth Aircraft CA-14 Wallaby

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg71550#msg71550 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg71550#msg71550)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 22, 2014, 02:15:45 PM
(Copy-&-paste from above-linked thread.)

Love the look of the CA-14 Wallaby, the Boomerang canopy & tail suits it well. 8)

This must have been before CAC developed the CA-14 turbo-supercharged Boomerang variant (for some reason CAC numbered each "block" of Boomerangs differently; CA-12, CA-13, CA-14(A) & CA-19).

In my mind I can see a CAS variant with inverted gull wings, 4 x 20mm cannon & rockets/bombs, too. CA-16 Thunderbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dromornithidae)?

Edit: Sorry, CA-15/Fw .... The title & in-article references are somewhat confusing. :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 29, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
Next installment of the 'Super Boomer' - CAC CA-14 Wallaby story ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg71860#msg71860 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg71860#msg71860)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 29, 2014, 11:13:18 AM
Damn! The more I see of this plane the more I love it! :-*

(Especially love the Mk.V)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on May 29, 2014, 02:22:28 PM
I didn't see anything...

... but it's great as always!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 29, 2014, 07:35:19 PM
Looking really good! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 31, 2014, 08:21:40 AM
For Old Wombat: A nautical CAC CA-14A 'blank' (somehow Sea Wallaby just sounds wrong!)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 31, 2014, 10:09:44 AM
Looks very nice.  The BMW is still a dead giveaway for its German heritage, though. Why don't you do an Aussie naval one with no spinner? Maybe a Bearcat or Hellcat-style prop?

Also, how many VBs did the ground crewman consume before painting that Aussie roundel on the underside of the wing? It's looking a bit fuzzy.  :icon_beer:   ;D

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 31, 2014, 11:51:09 AM
Thanks, dude! :-*

Also, how many VBs did the ground crewman consume before painting that Aussie roundel on the underside of the wing? It's looking a bit fuzzy.  :icon_beer:   ;D

Cheers,

Logan

2 cans per man per day - that man appears to have been the tech who painted that roundel. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 01, 2014, 02:58:58 AM
For Old Wombat: A nautical CAC CA-14A 'blank' (somehow Sea Wallaby just sounds wrong!)

But it looks so right... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 01, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
Struth! The drongo who painted the underwing roundels has been re-assigned (he's now applying a different sort of brush to the dunnies at CAC's off-site facility at the Essendon Aerodrome).

Logan: The spinner and cooling fan kind of go together. Also, I wanted to retain the 'Hunnish' look for the R-2000 cowling. Other than slightly reducing the diameter, CAC was doing a complete copy job.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on June 01, 2014, 01:12:43 PM
Australia was very good at doing complete copy jobs during WWII, buildings reproduced from UK sourced plans were built including snow chutes and other northern hemisphere features by people who were probably clueless to what they were.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 08, 2014, 12:17:57 PM
Next installment of the 'Super Boomer' - CAC CA-14 Wallaby story ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg72706#msg72706 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg72706#msg72706)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on June 08, 2014, 04:40:35 PM
Stunning!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on June 11, 2014, 10:55:44 PM
It has a Focke-American/North-Wulf kind of look to it. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 12, 2014, 11:31:23 AM
Thanks folks!  Here's another stab at the 'Sea Wallaby', now in a late British Pacific Fleet scheme as recommended by Old Wombat.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on June 12, 2014, 11:45:17 AM
The Temperate Navy scheme is terrific.

There is just nothing that this Aircraft looks wrong in.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Cliffy B on June 12, 2014, 11:52:45 AM
I think we need to see in USN tri-color before we make that statement.  You know, just to be sure  ;)

LOVE this plane man!  Keep 'em coming  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on June 12, 2014, 12:39:36 PM
Yeah, that latest BPF one is lovely.  Well done.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 12, 2014, 12:46:23 PM
Thanks folks!  Here's another stab at the 'Sea Wallaby', now in a late British Pacific Fleet scheme as recommended by Old Wombat.

I'm seriously in love! :-*

Now I'm going to have to build this baby - & I'm probably going to break my own 1/72nd-scale-only kitbash rule & do her in 1/48th! :o

Thanks, apophenia! :)

 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on June 13, 2014, 10:07:52 PM
Thanks folks!  Here's another stab at the 'Sea Wallaby', now in a late British Pacific Fleet scheme as recommended by Old Wombat.

Very nice, my favourite so far.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 17, 2014, 08:54:49 AM
Okay ... really, truely the last of the Wallaby fighters  ;)

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg73288#msg73288 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4422.msg73288#msg73288)

(BTW, I've also posted an RAN Buffalo on the 'Super Boomer' thread.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on June 17, 2014, 10:58:07 AM
That looks lovely! I really like it. That dark blue really suits it.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on June 17, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
Very nice one indeed!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 18, 2014, 12:11:03 AM
Next installment of the 'Super Boomer' - CAC CA-14 Wallaby story ...
Belated congratulations for the bubble CA-14, so nice! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2014, 04:47:31 AM
First installments in the Hawker Monsoon Story

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 13, 2014, 10:05:00 AM
Wonderful! Thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on July 13, 2014, 02:43:38 PM
Very good! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on July 15, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
Nice...very nice.

Some well thought out designs... and some very British "not so much" design.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 16, 2014, 09:08:03 AM
Thanks folks! Next installment: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg74785#msg74785 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg74785#msg74785)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on July 16, 2014, 02:26:51 PM
In a lack of proper term, I'm impressed!  :)

The Yugo Monsoon is extraordinary and the details are amazing! I'm curious: where did You found the name Biljana?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on July 16, 2014, 03:44:38 PM
Well done! TOP! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 17, 2014, 12:45:44 PM
Thanks folks!

Vuk: I was searching around for a Serbian name that would look unfamiliar to Anglo eyes. Then, I stumbled across Biljana Srbljanović and found the name I'd wanted. Probably not the Biljana you'd guessed, right?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on July 17, 2014, 08:00:56 PM
 :)

The truth is that in my life never was the girl named Biljana. I thought maybe it was in yours...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 22, 2014, 10:46:05 AM
Latest in the Hawker Monsoon story -- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75108#msg75108 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75108#msg75108)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 22, 2014, 01:45:35 PM
Thanks for these pleasant new profiles! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 24, 2014, 06:01:54 AM
Thanks Tophe! Here's the next two Monsoons ... http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75222#msg75222 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75222#msg75222)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2014, 04:44:56 AM
Final installment of The Hawker Monsoon Story --  http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75316#msg75316 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg75316#msg75316)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on July 26, 2014, 02:55:54 PM
Nice work! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 15, 2014, 07:11:12 AM
Another 'almost-was'. Having illustrated the unbuilt Tempest Mk.III, I decided to do another unbuilt Hawker fighter design from Tony Buttler's book, British Secret Projects 3: Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950. http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg76021#msg76021 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4576.msg76021#msg76021)

The Hawker P.1027 was Hawker's first stab at a fighter powered by Rolls-Royce's new 42H engine (later dubbed the Eagle). In effect, the Sept 1943 design was a revised Tempest and that fighter's 42-foot span wing was used unchanged. However, I have assumed that the 39-ft 9-inch fuselage more closely resembled that of a Fury (albeit, being somewhat lengthened).

Although the appearance of the later Eagle-powered P.1030 is reasonably well-known, AFAIK, there are no surviving drawings of the P.1027. However, it is described as having a Mustang-like radiator bath and slightly smaller overall dimensions than the P.1030 which eclipsed it.

In the end, neither the P.1027 nor the larger P.1030 (with its leading-edge raditors) was built. Buttler also mentions an  even smaller Eagle-powered design -- the P.1032, a direct Fury derivative, Now that is a little harder to envision!

[Top] A hypothetical P.1027 prototype with its Rolls-Royce 46H Eagle powerplant exposed.

[Bottom] A whif production P.1027, the Hawker Cyclone F.1. This aircraft is shown in the markings of No.600 (City of London) Squadron, RAuxAF. It is assumed that No.600 replaced the Spitfire F.14e with the Hawker fighter (instead of the RW Spitfire F.21s and then F.22s).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 15, 2014, 01:29:47 PM
Now, that's one sleek little aeroplane! :D

Kinda reminds me of the CAC CA-15 (only not as squared off at the tips). ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 15, 2014, 11:11:03 PM
 :-* Wonderful! No more need to invent jets!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on August 16, 2014, 01:14:08 AM
I wonder if Hawker Australia would have built them for the RAAF before switching production to the Hawk and Seahawk for the RAAF and  RAN FAA respectively  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 16, 2014, 01:51:25 AM
Now, that's one sleek little aeroplane! :D

Kinda reminds me of the CAC CA-15 (only not as squared off at the tips). ;)
Exactly what I was thinking when I saw that image.  Definitely a rather large and impressive brute of an aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 17, 2014, 05:26:09 AM
Hmmm, a CA-15 Kangaroo development with an Oz-built Rolls-Royce Eagle might be interesting ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 21, 2014, 10:33:25 AM
Evan mentioned the idea of a cleaned-up Żubr - http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2060.msg76304#msg76304 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2060.msg76304#msg76304)

I've had a go at lowering the wing of the LWS-6. Of course, it'd take a lot more than that to make the Żubr into any kind of looker!

With apologies to Zygmunt Szeremeta  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 22, 2014, 01:41:22 AM
interesting! (in fact I had to ask Google what the "real" Zubr was looking like, to compare)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 22, 2014, 02:43:40 AM
sigh…all these sexy ugly aircraft such as the LWS-6 Żubr and the somewhat similar

Amiot 143:

(http://oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Heller%20Am143.JPG)

and Potez 540:

(http://www.oldmodelkits.com/jpegs/Heller%2072%20Potez%20540.JPG)

If only they were in 1/48 form…. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on August 22, 2014, 04:39:20 AM
The Amiot does have the benefit of spats. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 10, 2014, 10:09:48 AM
Pax 1940 - for the Anything but Military GB

Avro Type 684C Avalon airliners
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77072#msg77072 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77072#msg77072)

Avro Type 686, Type 687, and Type 692 airliners
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77073#msg77073 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77073#msg77073)

Rootes Group Type 149C Rapier and Type 149T Rocket feederliners
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77213#msg77213 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4722.msg77213#msg77213)

-------------------------------------------
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 16, 2014, 11:18:45 AM
One that wouldn't fit into the Anything but Military GB ...
_____________________________________________

When KLM traded-in its early-model Fokker F.40A airliners, these aircraft were issued to the Luchtvaartafdeling (LVA). After re-painting, fitting of military equipment, and the installation of a navigator's station behind the cockpit, the F.40As were issued to 10 transportvliegtuigafdeling, the LVA's newly-established transport squadron.

In service, these aircraft were designated F.40A-Mv (or Militaire versie van de F.40A). But one F.40A-Mv, registered as X-14, was loaned back to Fokker to act as an armaments testbed. This aircraft was fitted with a fixed 7.9 mm FN Browning machine gun in the nose cone (fired by the co-pilot) and a T-V style dorsal gun position complete with sliding cover and hinged head shield. The dorsal gunner also remotely operated a third Browning, wobble-mounted in the tailcone.

After trials, the LVA decided not to arm the F.40A-Mv fleet. X-14 retained its gun positions but was returned to 10 TransVA, 3 LvR, at Eindhoven.
___________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 16, 2014, 02:43:39 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on October 16, 2014, 02:45:33 PM
Very nice one! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on October 16, 2014, 08:41:11 PM
That's really fantastic, apophenia.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on October 18, 2014, 12:18:47 AM
Another nice one.
Just one question: are those tail markings on your Fokker also whiff?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 18, 2014, 12:40:46 AM
Nice silhouette!
Google does not know this Fokker F.40 at all, it seems, does it come completely from your imagination? (that would be even better...) ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 18, 2014, 03:24:16 AM
Nice silhouette!
Google does not know this Fokker F.40 at all, it seems, does it come completely from your imagination? (that would be even better...) ;)


I think you will find that it is based upon the real world Fokker T.V:

(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/196/pics/144_3.jpg)

Which people can get both 1/72 and 1/48 kits of which should they wish to replicate this creation in plastic.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2014, 09:51:12 AM
Thanks folks!

Just one question: are those tail markings on your Fokker also whiff?

Well spotted Vuk! Not an intentional whiff, I just put on the Dutch flag upside down  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2014, 09:54:43 AM
Pax 1940 - Italian and Romanian Savoia Marchetti derivatives

The Savoia Marchetti SM.79CM was perhaps the most straightforward of the bomber-to-airliner conversions. Based on the SM.79-I bomber, the SM.79CM followed the pattern of the earlier SM.79CS and SM.79T airliner versions.

The SM.79CM serie 1 was a production line modification of the SM.79-I bomber. Serie 2 aircraft had 800 hp Alfa Romeo 126 RC.10 engines. The Serie 3 introduced the 960 hp Alfa 128 RC.18 along with revised cabin windows.

(Top) Savoia Marchetti SM.79CM serie 3 in Ala Littoria's 1941 livery (like many airlines, Ala Littoria adopted a silver-grey finish in an attempt to match the nouvelle vogue of all-metal airliners). Behind the main ALI titles is the air mail slogan "Per via Aerea via Ala Littoria".

The SM.79CM was popular in ALI service, being more economical than the larger SM.84C and Fiat G.12CA trimotors and more reliable than the twin-engined Fiat G.18V

IAR.82 - The Italian 'Sparrowhawk' becomes a Romanian 'Stork'

In May 1937, Romania ordered 24 twin-engined SM.79B bombers powered by two Romanian-built Gnome-Rhône K14 radial engines. It was also intended that IAR would produce an improved Savoia-Marchetti bomber at Brașov. Those plans were scaled back and Ing. Elie Carafoli turned his attention to a civil derivative instead.

The resulting IAR.82 was a rather more ambitious design than the SM.79CM. The fuselage structure was totally re-designed. The passenger cabin was formed as a wooden box. The rest of the fuselage was of welded steel tubing -- the cockpit section clad in dural sheeting and the rear fuselage covered in fabric. The vertical tail of the planned IAR bomber was also adopted.

Marketed as the Brașov Barza (Stork), the IAR.82 was offered  to the Romanian airline, Liniile Aeriene Române Exploatate de Stat. LARES prefered the Lockheed 14 but this option was refused by the government in Bucharest.

LARES received the prototype Barza, YR-PAF, in the Spring of 1941. During LARES trials, the aircraft suffered a minor engine fire. The prototype was safely put down at Constanța but LARES had found its excuse to dump the Barza. The sole IAR.82 was transferred to FARR to support their SM.79B bombers. LARES eventually adopted the IAR 14K-powered PZL.44R Wicher.

____________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on October 18, 2014, 05:23:00 PM

Well spotted Vuk! Not an intentional whiff, I just put on the Dutch flag upside down  :-[

Well, intentional or not, it's still a whiff  :)

By the way, it was not hard to spot it, since the reversed Dutch flag looks like Yugoslav. I will be embarrassed if I didn't see it...  ;)

Forgot to tell that I really like Savoias.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 19, 2014, 01:55:58 AM
I love the Savoia Marchetti derivatives. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 03, 2014, 11:36:49 AM
This ones for Vuk.

The story of early Yugoslav Blenheims is fairly well-known.* Bristol provided Blenheim Mk.I pattern aircraft and compenents for assembling at the Ikarus AD plant at Zemun/Belgrade. The resulting aircraft were designated Icarus B.1 by the Royal Yugoslav Air Force. Ikarus AD applied its own, internal designations and had begun to give evocative names to its designs. For the B.1, the name Bura was applied (after a strong Adriatic wind, to match Ikarus' Orkan).

The Blenheim Mk.Is were known to Ikarus AD as the B.1B - the suffix referring to the engine maker, Bristol. Unbuilt Ikarus B.1 projects also received designations, as follows:

 - B.1P: PZL-built Bristol Mercury VIII, 840 hp
 - B.1N: Nohab (SFA) Mercury XXIV, 980 hp**

Ikarus was not able to glean stocks of Mercury engines from any source. Of necessity, plans turned to substitute engine types. As new member of the Axis 'Pact of Steel', the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Kraljevina Jugoslavija) could now choose more freely among Italian and German engines.

Two B.I airframes were set aside for re-engining. One, br.3556, was to test alternative single-row radials at the B.2. The second, br.3547, was to be converted to test twin-row radial substitute engines.

_______

* Less well-known is the Icarus B.4, a single conversion to a Blenheim Mk.IV-style nose. Some 20 B.4s were ordered from Ikarus but not completed (having been overtaken by events). The sole B.4 (br.3535) was converted to photo-recce B.4f standards and transferred first to the Regia Aeronautica and then to the Luftwaffe.

** In 1941, Nohab Flygmotorfabriker AB became SFA (Svenska Flygmotor Aktiebolaget)

___________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 03, 2014, 11:39:02 AM
Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - the Bura Radial Engine Testbeds

The Icarus B.2 was a relatively straightforward conversion performed at Zemun using the B.1 YU-BAN (L6831/3556). The resulting B.2R fitted twin 780 hp Alfa Romeo 126 RC.34 engines in place of the Blenheim's Mercury radials. The lower-powered Alfas were not an ideal choice but were readily available.* However, the conversion had to potential to free up dwindling Yugoslav stocks of Mercury radials for the in-service B.1 bombers.

Other B.2 single-row radial engine testbeds were planned but not completed. These were:

 - B.2B: Bramo 323 Fafnir 323P-1, 940 PS
 - B.2H: BMW 132K ('Hornet'), 960 PS
 - B.2W: Wright R-1820-G205A, 1,200 hp *

The B-2R was not the first Bura engine testbed. With Ikarus overwhelmed with work, the B.3P conversion was performed by Piaggio in Italy. The B.1, YU-BAE (L6823/br.3547), was flown to Malpensa (Milan) where Piaggio fitted twin 986 hp P.XI RC 40 radials in cowlings provided by Officine Meccaniche Reggiane SpA.

As with the B.2, other twin-row radials were considered. These were:

 - B.3K: DFA Kraljevo-built GR 14K, 850 hp
 - B.3F (I): Fiat A.80 RC.41 18-cyliner, 1,000 hp
 - B.3F (II): Fiat A.74 RC.38 14-cylinder, 870 hp

_______

* This was the result of VVKJ SM.79P bombers being re-fitted with more powerful PZL-built Pegasus engines in their noses. The now-surplus Alfa Romeo 126s went to the Bura program.

Forgot to mention: The sideviews are based on a  Yugoslav Bleheim by Ognjan M. Petrovic:  http://leadenskybooks.com/?contents (http://leadenskybooks.com/?contents)
___________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on November 03, 2014, 04:12:40 PM
This ones for Vuk...

Sir... I'm honored! Qapla'!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 04, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Cheers Vuk! Here's some more ...

Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - Future Plans and Bura Production

The ultimate plan for the Yugoslav Blenheim was an aerodynamic 'clean up' to suit the aircraft to both the light bomber and the attack role. To that end, Ikarus AD engineers S. Momcilovic and D. Radojkovic were assigned the task of adapting the drag-reducing nose and single-seat cockpit section from their private-venture Orkan (Hurricane) design to the Blenheim fuselage.

The result was to be the Bura B.5. The design had a noticeable 'step' in the underside of its forward fuselage. This was to accommodate a heavier forward-firing armament for the anticipated attack role. Initially, it was thought that this armament would consist of a pair of Hispano-Suiza HS-404 cannons - one installation replacing each forward bomb bay.

When supplies of the French guns dried up, Momcilovic and Radojkovic turned first to the German Oerlikon MG FF and then to Italian 12,7 mm heavy machine guns. It was assumed that the B.5 would be powered by Piaggio P.XI radials as on the P.3P testbed but this was not to be.

The proposed B.5 was eclipsed by a simpler productionized form of the B.3P. The B.6 was a refined B.3P with equipment substituted to better suit the Kingdom of Yugoslavia's role as a member of the Axis alliance. Having made clear that Yugoslavia would take no part in any attack on fellow Slavs in the Soviet Union, Belgrade found itself given a lower priority for German exports. as a result, the B.6 series relied heavily upon Italian suppliers.

Other than the Piaggio engines, notable changes from the B.1 series included the substitution of the main undercarriage members from the Fiat CR.25, the replacement of the Bristol B.I dorsal turret with a manually-operated Caproni-Lanciani Delta (armed with a 7,9 mm Scotti-I.F. M1932/jugoslavo), and the use of Regia Aeronautica radio equipment.

Bottom: A freshly-delivered Ikarus B.6/I light bomber due for the 62nd Bomber Group.

__________________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on November 05, 2014, 05:02:52 PM
My first thought on B.5 was - heavy/night fighter...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 05, 2014, 07:59:51 PM
 :-* The Bura B.5 is just lovely... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 14, 2014, 10:05:34 AM
Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - Export Bura Variants

The Alfa-engined B.7 actually predated the VVJK's Bura B.6. The B.7s were final production Bura B.1s fitted with 780 hp Alfa Romeo 126 RC.34 engines inherited from SM.79P bombers. The Alfas were available but the VVJK knew from the B-2R engine testbed that the B.7 would  be underpowered. As a result, it was decided to complete all Alfa powered Buras as dual-control B.7 Treners (or B.7/Ts).

A surprise request came from the Regia Aeronautica. Since the Italians were already flying Bura B.1f photo-reconnaissance aircraft (in mock RAF markings), it was decided that a pilot conversion trainer was also needed. The B.7/T -- or B.7 D.C. for Doppio Comando -- filled this role without additional wear on the more valuable Bristol Mercury radials.

Top: A B.7 D.C. assigned to the 2º Gruppo aviazione Presidio Coloniale, Aviazione della Cirenaica. Italian B.7s were fitted with sliding gun hatches for self-defence. It seems that this modest arrangement was inadequate --  on its delivery flight to Libya, this aircraft was shot down by intercepting RAF Beaufighters out of Malta.

The more streamlined B.5 nose was first introduced to the production line with the Bura B.8 series. Export interest in this variant came from the Romanian FARR. While the VVJK's B.8s retained the Piaggio P.XIs of the B.6, the export B.8Ru (Rumunjski) was fitted with IAR 14K  radials. These aircraft were assembled by IAR at Brașov from kits supplied by Ikarus AD.

Bottom: A third series B.8Ru/III (or IAR B.8C) of the FARR's Escadrila 1 recunoastere. These aircraft were armed with single 7,9 mm Scotti or FN guns in the Lanciana Delta dorsal turret and twin, forward-firing 13.2mm FN machine guns under the cockpit.

BTW: The B.8Ru was based on a FARR Blenheim Mk.I profile by Bogdan Pătraşcu.

_____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 14, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
Impressive family!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 15, 2014, 03:20:29 AM
Those last two look great! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 24, 2014, 06:34:04 AM
Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - Replacement Concept and 'Bura V-12'

Several attempts were made to develop the MR-1 Orkan design to fill roles unsuited to the Bura. One such was an Orkan-based hybird using Bura wings, the MR-4 Oluja (Tempest).

Top: MR-4 Oluja concept in its Piaggio P.XI-powered form.

The object of the MR-4 Oluja design was to produce a capable torpedo bomber. The scheme appears to have been workable but the VVKJ elected to procure more SM.79Ps from Italy to fill this role.

A constant challenge for Ikarus designers was finding higher-powered engines for the Bura. Having been constantly thwarted in their attempts to procure DB601s, Ikarus turned to Soviet Klimov M-105A V-12s from captured by the Germans and then offered for sale.*

The Bura B.10 was an inline engine testbed modification of the radial-engined Bura B.8. The Bura B.10S (Sovjetski) with Klimov M-105As was the first flown. The modification was a complete success and a small production series was prepared. However, before any production B.11S was completed, VVKJ planners redirected all available Klimov engines to fighter re-engining programs.

Bottom: Bura B.10S testbed. Note the mix of markings. Underwing roundels are the original Axis VVKJ design. Added fuselage roundels are of the later, simplified design. Note that both those fuselage roundels and nacelle recognition markings are in the later pale grey (rather than pure white). The dorsal turret was later removed.

_________________

* Those M-105A engines intended for the Bura B.11 lacked gun syncronization. Klimov engines with syncronization were allocated to Rogožarski for use in fighters.
_________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 24, 2014, 06:36:34 AM
Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - A Southern Wind and Fiat Power

Development of the Bura B.10S was cut short when the VVKJ demanded the return of its Klimov M-105A engines. Tests had shown improved climb and top speed performance but found the aircraft somewhat lacking in directional control. Twin tailplanes were designed but not fitted before the V-12 engines were removed.

A potential solution to the B.10 prototype's engine problem arose from the demise of another Ikarus project -- the MR-2 Jugo (Sirocco or 'South' wind), a low-winged Orkan derivative. With the MR-2 shelved, its Fiat A.74 radials were available. At 870 hp, the Italian engines lacked the Klimov's power but the Fiats' smaller diameter better suited them to re-engining the B.10S than any other available powerplants.

Top: Ikarus MR-2 Jugo concept as a light bomber. Note smaller Orkan-style fins (compared with MR-4 Oluja concept, above).

Accordingly, the B.10S was fitted with both Fiat A.74 RC.38 engines and the twin tails intended for higher-powered Bura derivatives. Both were a complete success and Ikarus proposed fitting Fiat radials to the engineless B.11S airframes nearing completion on their production lines. It was envisioned that the resulting B.11Fs would suit the VVKJ as dual control trainers for more powerful operational Bura variants.

Bottom: Bura B.10F (Fiat) testbed shown after the fitting of twin tails. Note that the Underwing roundels have been repainted in the simplified design. Oddly, nacelle recognition markings have reverted to pure white rather than the by-then appropriate pale grey. The Fiat-supplied cowlings are the same as those for the CR.42 fighter.

_________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on November 24, 2014, 03:00:00 PM
Elegant lines! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on November 24, 2014, 03:47:28 PM
A, You made my day!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2014, 11:39:10 AM
Thanks folks!

As mentioned, the VVJK decided to allocate all available 'war-booty' Klimov M-105 engines to fighter programs. Engines lacking gun synchonization went to Zmaj to re-engine Hawker Hurricanes with worn-out Merlins. The result was the 'Hariken-S'.

[Bottom] A newly refurbished 'Hariken-S' of 35. Grupa, 5. Lovacki Puk/3. Brigada, Leskovac (prior to dispatch to Thessaloniki, Greece). Note that White 7's markings are only partially applied - white paint has yet to be added to the fuselage roundel and the fighter's new, Luftwaffe-style individual aircraft number.

Synchronized Klimovs went to Rogožarski for IK-3/II re-engining and new-production IK-3/III Jastreb (Hawk) fighters. The later was readily distinguishable from early IK-3s by the upper cowling bulges for its synchronized 12,7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns (a third Breda fired through the hollow propeller shaft).

[Top] An IK-3/III Jastreb of 32. Grupa, 2. Lovacki Puk/1. Brigada at Krusevac. Fuselage mottling on 'Red 4' is more extensive than normal (with grey mottling extending into the recognition panels and even forms a 'Spiralschnauze' on the spinner!).
______________________

NB: Both of these sideviews began life as profiles by Srecko Bradic.

______________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 29, 2014, 05:30:52 PM
Neat! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 29, 2014, 05:50:17 PM
MR-4 Oluga and MR-2 Jugo  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 30, 2014, 03:11:53 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2015, 05:49:13 AM
Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - Buras with Inline Engines

Ikarus finally got access to the DB601 engines that it needed to increase Bura performance. Italy was prepared to allocated a small percentage of its licensed Alfa Romeo RA.1000 RC.41 Monsone powerplants to Yugoslav production. Thus was born the Bura B.12 variant.

The Bura B.12 was to be a torpedo bomber (to replace VVKJ SM.79s in that role). To ensure torpedo clearance, a larger tailwheel was used. Experience demonstrated that the twin tails for the earlier B.11S development were inadequate and these were replaced by larger tails. Another visual change was to the turret. The manually-operated Lanciana Delta dorsal turret was replaced by the powered German EDL 131 Drehturm.

[Bottom] The Bura B.12 prototype flew well (once fitted with enlarged tailplanes) but, even fitted with the Italian-made DB.601 engines, the aircraft did not have sufficient power to perform adequately as a torpedo bomber. This prototype was converted to Bura B.14 standards.

Also mooted was a float-equipped Bura torpedo bomber, the B.12H (Hidroplan) for the Royal Yugoslav Naval Aviation, KJRM-RM (Kraljevska Jugoslavenska Ratna Mornarica - Pomorskom vazduhoplovstvu). Priority for Monsone engines was given to VVKJ aircraft and no B.12H was floatplane completed.

The B.12 was not the first Bura fitted with inverted V-12 engines. When the VVKJ showed no interest in a Fiat-powered B.11F, Rumania saw an opportunity. IAR was willing to take the semi-finished B.11S centre sections as part of its planned Bura improvement to be powered by twin Junker Jumo 211Da engines. IAR produced its hybrid type by combining those B.11S centre section with Rumanian-built B.8C fuselages, tailplanes, and outer wing panels.

Ikarus AD knew these hybrids as the B.11Ru (or B.11Ju) but the Rumanians refered to the new type at the IAR B.8M. The higher power of the Jumo 211s dictated the addition of a dorsal fin extension to maintain stability. All B.11Ru/B.8Ms featured these dorsal strakes (the first three airframes being retrofitted after entering FARR service).

[Top] B.11Ru (IAR B.8C) of the FARR's Escadrila 2 Recunoastere. Defensive armament for these aircraft consisted of a single 7.9 mm FN machine guns in the manually-operated Lanciana Delta dorsal turret and another pair of forward-firing 7.9 mm FN guns under the cockpit.

NB: B.11Ru derived from a FARR Blenheim Mk.I by Bogdan Patrascu.
___________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on January 04, 2015, 06:38:04 AM
Pretty birds!

I really like the torpedo bomber, very sleek looking.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 05, 2015, 01:15:20 PM
Surprising silhouettes, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 09, 2015, 11:40:52 AM
Thanks folks!

Yugoslav Blenheim Developments - Last of Ikarus' Bura Line

The VVKJ ordered that Bura production focus on the new Alfa-engined B.14 light bomber and reconnaissance model. However, the next production model was a hybrid of B.8 and B.14 parts. The B.15 preceded the B.14 into service and differed only in detail.

[Top] The Bura B.15 retained the fixed tailwheel of the B.8 as well as its Italian turret. Although painted in the standard late-war VVKJ maritime reconnaisance scheme, this aircraft was provided to the German Luftwaffe for trials at Rechlin.

To confuse matters further, the first production B.14s were really B.15 airframes fitted with German EDL 131 turrets. The Bura B.14/II series were the first to introduce the B.12's retractable tailwheel (as well as German radio equipment). This B.14/II defected to occupied Italy and has been given partial RAF markings.

Although not obvious here, the B.14/II standardized on the German MG131 for defensive -- both in the hydraulically-powered EDL 131 turret and fixed, forward firing guns. Light bombers had twin forward-firing guns, maritime attack models featured four fixed guns.
_______________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 10, 2015, 03:58:10 AM
Sleek!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2015, 07:03:31 AM
OT for the Buran story but here's a pair of unbuilt Yugoslav fighter projects ...

In the summer of 1942, Eng. Dusan Stankov found himself overseeing the re-assembly of former Luftwaffe Bf 109B for use as VVKJ fighter-trainers at the ZMAJ factory at Zemun. Ideal 'lead-in' trainers for Yugoslav Bf 109E-3a Orao (Eagle) fighters, the 'Bs were also available in some numbers. Alas, there was also a shortage of Jumo 210 spares. That prompted two Bf 109B re-engining proposals.

The first was a scheme to turn surplus Bf 109B airframes into operational aircraft, the Orao B OVP (Operativni Vazduhoplovni Projekt). This OVB involved the installation of more powerful engines and, for fighters,increasing the armament. The two components of the Orao B OVP were the proposed Bf 109/BP (Brzog Presretaca or Fast Interceptor) and the Bf 109/BI (Brzog Izvidnika or Fast Reconnaissance aircraft).

Both Orao B OZP variants required engine changes. Proposed Jumo 210 replacements were either Hispano-Suiza HS 12Ys bought from Vichy France or Soviet Klimov M-105 V-12s from German war booty' stocks. In the event, neither engine was available and attention turned to another Bf 109B conversion, the Projekt za Napredno Trenera (Advanced Trainer Project).

The Orao NP (Napredni Trener) was to be a straightforward Bf 109B conversion, The Jumo 210 powerplant and radiator was to be removed and replaced by an Italian air-cooled V-12 -- the 700 hp Isotta-Fraschini Delta RC.35. At 510 kg, the Italian engine was slightly heavier than the 440 kg Jumo 210 but the weight of the radiator and coolant was to make up the difference. In the event, the Projekt za Napredno Trenera was restricted to keeping existing Bf 109Bs airworthy and no re-engining took place.

Another, more dramatic, fighter transformation was also planned by Stankov. In this scheme, existing IK-2 parasol fighters were to be modernized by fitting Bf 109B wings and retractable main undercarriage legs. To prove the concept, one damaged IK-2 airframe was rebuilt with stiffener panels to accept the Messerschmitt components.

As envisioned, the concept was to rebuild surviving IK-2s into Messerschmitt-winged IK-2Ms. If successful, Ikarus would restart the IK-2 line to produce new-build IK-6 fighters with DB 601A or Klimove M-105 powerplants. Increasing access to ex-Luftwaffe Bf 109Es put paid to the notion of IK-2 modernizations.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on January 16, 2015, 05:04:39 PM
Astonishing as always, A!  :)

I must mention next, although is not whiff: prior to WWII, Kingdom of Yugoslavia was manufacturing Hawker Hurricanes by license, but was short in engines. However, receiving Messerschmitt Bf 109E, Yugoslavia also received a number of spare engines. Consequently, on one of Hurricanes was installed a Daimler Benz DB.601A. The aircraft received designation LVT-1 (Lovac Vazduhoplovno Tehnički = Fighter Aeronautical Technical; also, the term ''zrakoplovni'' You used is a Croatian term, while in Kingdom of Yugoslavia Serbian term ''vazduhoplovni'' was much more in use). The term Technical supposed to meant that aircraft was to be used as a test example, but it held its 8 x 7,7mm guns, with addition of single 20mm cannon mounted in the engine axis. LVT-1 even saw an action. Five days prior to outbreak of war, it intercepted and forced German Messerschmitt Bf 110 which entered Yugoslav air space to land on April 1st, and on April 8th he attacked a Wehrmacht troops convoy, but without known result. Returning from that mission LVT-1 suffered engine failure and the pilot was forced to land and abandon the aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dy031101 on January 16, 2015, 11:57:56 PM
Um...... cool glazed-nose airplanes......  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2015, 12:50:48 PM
Thanks guys. And thanks vuk for the correction and details. I knew about the Hurricane with a DB6012 but not the  LVT-1 designation. Cheers!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: arc3371 on February 07, 2015, 01:58:06 AM
Very interesting designs
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: JP Vieira on February 08, 2015, 05:12:00 PM
Very nice designs
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2015, 10:58:23 AM
Something silly. Bell's Model 429 goes on the attack ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 27, 2015, 11:21:23 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on February 27, 2015, 11:41:29 AM
Love them!

I notice the (much smaller) clamshell doors are still on the top one... Is that for passengers? :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on February 27, 2015, 12:41:52 PM
I wonder how they'd react to those at work?  Those do look intriguing.  The aft clamshell doors for ro-ro (roll on - roll off) mission pallets?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on February 27, 2015, 09:21:47 PM
I wonder how they'd react to those at work?  Those do look intriguing.  The aft clamshell doors for ro-ro (roll on - roll off) mission pallets?

They might wonder how you knew about these already. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2015, 12:56:27 PM
Thanks folks.

I notice the (much smaller) clamshell doors are still on the top one... Is that for passengers? :)

I was thinking more of carrying your own reloads when deploying to an FOL. Teensy bit cramped in there for passengers  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Silver Fox on February 28, 2015, 11:23:08 PM
I got to thinking that it might be really useful as a multi-purpose mission bay.

Possible uses, in addition to the transport of reloads to an FOL, would include:


Could be a unique capability.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 01, 2015, 12:22:41 AM
I got to thinking that it might be really useful as a multi-purpose mission bay.

Possible uses, in addition to the transport of reloads to an FOL, would include:

  • Carriage/Deployment of unmanned systems: UGV,USV and UAV
  • Internal carriage of extended range fuel tankage, saving pylon space
  • Special electronics fit: Equipment needed for special missions such as ECM/EW, ELINT or systems required for advanced weapons. The sensors can then go on the pylons
  • CSAR crew recovery
  • Sensor deployment, including sonobouys or the various surface-movement detectors

Could be a unique capability.
As I said, ro-ro mission pallets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 04, 2015, 05:49:16 AM
Not a whif, an almost-was  ;)  The proposed Vazar Turbine Husky conversion (and the base Fairchild Husky F-11-2 bushplane).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 04, 2015, 01:23:48 PM
Nice ones!
You could participate to the current Floaty GB, yes!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on March 04, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
indeed !  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 14, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Thanks folks!

Since the EC 645 T2 came up elsewhere ... an almost-is rather than a whif ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 14, 2015, 12:40:13 PM
I didn't know it but the version you mentionned leaded me to http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/ref/H145M_47.html (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/ref/H145M_47.html) with Google's help. And your one seems a little different, lighter, no?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on March 14, 2015, 08:17:46 PM

Thanks folks!

Since the EC 645 T2 came up elsewhere ... an almost-is rather than a whif ;)

Great job, that is a very nice looking helicopter and would probably look good in any markings, you got more versions planned?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 15, 2015, 10:29:09 AM

Tophe: Thanks for the link. That H145M rebranding for the the EC645 T2 must be pretty recent. I think that my speculative version looks 'lighter' than the Airbus Helicopters demonstrator just because the  Luftwaffe type is shown without pylons.

Volkodav: Hmmm, hadn't really thought about that. Any suggestions for markings?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 15, 2015, 12:12:16 PM
Maybe Roma Vatican Air Force (the new pope seems so popular, he needs defense against the crowd) ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 22, 2015, 06:07:54 AM
You could participate to the current Floaty GB, yes!


Thanks for the idea Tophe. I've paired up the Turbine Husky with another unbuilt floatplane project -- the Beaver Aircraft of Canada NG Super Otter.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5306 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5306)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2015, 05:54:41 AM

Something different.  I'd meant to get this ready for the Book/Movie/Game GB but ...  :P

________________________________

Comment on Kenneth Molson's great work, Canadian Aircraft Since 1909,* often bemoans its lack of Putnam-style 3-view drawings. But there is a greater omission - a single page on B.W. Bandy's Gander Experimental Mk.I amphibian.

Since the Gander prototype was built in the US, Molson intended to cover the Bandy aircraft in the Appendices. Somehow, the assigned page number (pg 524) was forgotten by the typesetter. Instead of being slotted in between the Avro Avian and the Grumman G-23 Goblin as planned, the Bandy Gander entry was left out all together.

Fortunately, the omitted galley page was rescued from the archives of Putnam's printer (that would be the blue recycling bin out the back). This is an irreplaceable and priceless piece of Canadian aviation history ... so, naturally, it will be open for bids on eBay next week  ;)

________________________________

* Canadian Aircraft Since 1909, KM Molson and HA Taylor, Canada's Wings, Stittsville, ON, 1982, ISBN 0920002110

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2015, 09:30:26 AM

A portion of a blueprint showing the sideview of the Bandy Gander in its intial guise, powered by a 190 hp Renault 8Gd water-cooled V-8 engine. This cropped artwork presumeably originated with the Glenn L. Martin Company.

__________________________


The Bandy Papers are the 9-volume memoirs of Bartholomew Wolfe Bandy (ghosted by Donald Jack). The Bandy Gander amphibian features in two volumes:

Me Too (Volume V of The Bandy Papers)
ISBN 9780981024486
Published Dec 2010
E-book edition
ISBN 9780986497490
Published October 2012

This One's On Me (Volume VI of The Bandy Papers)
Paperback ISBN 9780973950557
E-book ISBN 9780981024462
400pp.
Pub. July 2008

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 09, 2015, 01:15:29 PM
No windscreen and no frontal view? This is funny... (but Real project?) :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2015, 05:12:06 AM

Tophe: The image is a 'warmed over' Dornier Do B Merkur. Alas, the Bandy Gander was only a figment of Donald Jack's imagination.

The Merkur's frontal view would have been even worse! Replacing the BMW VI V-12 with the inline Puma could only have improved matters.

For the record, the entire Bandy Papers are now available as e-Books:

- Volume I of the Bandy Papers ---- Three Cheers For Me, 1962
- Volume II of the Bandy Papers --- That's Me in the Middle, 1973
- Volume III of the Bandy Papers -- It's Me Again, 1975
 -- Orig. published separately as It's Me Again and Me Among the Ruins
- Volume IV of the Bandy Papers --- Me Bandy, You Cissie, 1979
- Volume V of the Bandy Papers ---- Me Too, 1983
- Volume VI of the Bandy Papers --- This One's On Me, 1987
- Volume VII of the Bandy Papers -- Me So Far, 1989
- Volume VIII of the Bandy Papers - Hitler vs. Me, 1996
- Volume IX of the Bandy Papers --- Stalin vs. Me, 2005

http://www.sybertooth.com/bandy/ (http://www.sybertooth.com/bandy/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 28, 2015, 05:24:38 AM
The Kosher Hustler - the B-58i Ariyyáhu, my entry into the Extended Service Life and/or Back dated GB:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5433.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5433.0)

For those interested, there is also the B-58A Hustler armed with the British Blue Steel missile:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5345.msg90554#msg90554 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5345.msg90554#msg90554)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 28, 2015, 11:41:54 AM
With this huge missile, the B-58 almost looks like a (vertical) twin-plane... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on May 28, 2015, 01:09:40 PM
I just had a completely off the wall idea and couldn't think of anywhere better to put it, a carrier based strike bomber version of the Hustler, flying off a notional hyper carrier, developed in the 50's as an enlargement of the USS United States (assuming the class was built instead of cancelled).  What would be really fun is if this carrier was a joint project with the UK, say the US builds five or six and the UK three. 

Anyway, details of the carriers aside, the ships are built and they are specifically designed to embark supersonic medium bombers as large as the B-58.  Paint schemes would be easy, just how to do arrester hook, catapult strop or bar and how to modify the undercarriage into something believable and would the wings fold or not?  I just have a picture in my mind of a Hustler in a FAA Buccaneer scheme.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2015, 11:57:28 AM
Sea Boots for the Hustler

The General Dynamics Sea Hustler was a one-off bomber prototype for the US Navy. First flown in August 1958, the supersonic bomber was designated as YB3G-1.* The naval bomber differed from its USAF counterpart in having larger twin engines and naval equipment.

The YB3G-1 powerplants were GE YJ92s,** an enlarged development of the B-58A's J79 engines. The twin YJ92s generated 57,600 lb.s.t. in full afterburner (less than the four B-58A's J79s but sufficient for the lighter YB3G-1.

Despite a rigorous weight reduction program, it was obvious at an early stage that the General Dynamics bomber would be too big to operate in any numbers from even the largest of US Navy carriers. As a result, the program was eliminated.

The Sea Hustler stayed in US Navy service as a test airframe until damaged in Feb 1962. By then, the bomber category had been dropped and the Sea Hustler redesignated as YAG-1.

_________________________

* For some reason, the BuAer continued the old Great Lakes series of bomber designations.

** The YJ92 turbojet was related to the USAF's YB94 (for the XB-70 and XF-108). While the YB94 sprang from General Electric's Mach 3-capable X279, the Navy's J92 was to be the production version of the Mach 2 X275 engine.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on May 30, 2015, 11:43:50 PM
Sweet, another thought I had was a dedicated low altitude tactical attack version powered by non-afterburning Olympus or Conway that should be able to supercruise.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 07, 2015, 06:43:35 AM
One that missed the Extended Service GB ...
____________________________________________________

Belated Boomers -- the Export CAC CA-22 Boomerang IIs

The first export of Boomerang IIs came in early 1947 as part of Australian support for British rehabilitation of occupied Siam. Refurbished ex-RAAF Boomerang IIs, the CAC-22S served primarily as lead-in trainers for Spitfire fighters.

After wartime leader, Field Marshal Phibun, was restored as Prime Minister in 1948, the Chifley Government withdrew Australian military support for the now-renamed Thailand. With no access to spares, the CAC-22S fleet fell into disrepair and was out of RTAF service by 1951.

[Top] CA-22S (designated BKh.14 in Thai service) in typical RTAF finish. These aircraft retained their overall silver finish from RAAF service. The Thai flag formed a rudder stripe with an individual aircraft number on the fin. An RTAF pennant below the cockpit shows this to be a squadron leaders mount. Red spinner and wing tips were typical and, as a 1 Wing aircraft, '17' wears a red-outlined white stripe around its rear fuselage.

Another SE Asian recipient of ex-RAAF Boomerang IIs was South Vietnam. The Menzies Government began supplying training aid and equipment to Saigon in 1954, including Boomerang IIs rebuilt as CA-22Vs in 1955. These aircraft flew in the Army Co-operation role. To lay smoke target-markers, triple-tube M9 rocket launchers were carried on modified wingtips.

[Bottom] A late production CA-22 (revealed by its wing armament of four .5" Browning guns) in VNAF markings. Note that this aircraft features both the 'concentric circle' roundels it was delivered with (under wing) and the new 'stars-and-bars' marking (on the rear fuselage). The South Vietnamese flag is displayed on the vertical tail (as is the 1st FS flash, which is repeated on the cowling).
____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on July 07, 2015, 02:08:20 PM
Nice work and story on the CA-22! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 18, 2015, 07:00:08 AM
I also like the CA-22 of yours, as a radial Mustang egg-plane somehow! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 23, 2015, 06:22:35 AM

The Fokker Ontwerp 203 or 'D.XL' was a special presentation aircraft designed specifically for Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring. The 'D.XL' was redesigned to suit the Reichsmarschall's physique - including a widened fuselage, specially reinforced pilot's seat, and extra hand-holds for entry and egress.

Other differences from the Great War Fokker D.VII fighter included the substitution of a modern, air-cooled Argus As 10 inverted V-8 engine. Pneumatic tires and wheel brakes were also added.

The finished 'D.XL' was presented to the Reichsmarschall at Schiphol in September 1940 but, alas, this aircraft never flew. As Göring familiarized himself with the 'D.XL' on taxiing trials, the main undercarriage struts collapsed. Insufficient hardening of the metal tubing was blamed although the Reichsmarschall's over-hardy luncheon likely put the 'D.XL' beyond structural tolerances.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on July 23, 2015, 10:11:30 AM
Love your work!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 10, 2015, 09:29:01 AM
This is a follow-on from the Westland Westmorland done for the Vertical Takeoff GB:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5634.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5634.0)

UH-34M Pensacola and CH-126B Huron -- Sikorsky's Westmorlands

By 1965, Westlands had finished with its WS.58N demonstrator. To avoid paying UK import taxes on this converted Sikorsky-made airframe was stripped of its engines and returned to the US. Sikorsky had already assessed the Westmorland and concluded that there was no US market for a Nimbus (or Turmo) powered helicopter.

Sikorsky had been working on upgrade concepts for US military S-58s, the UH-34 series, and the WS.58N airframe added another wrinkle to those proposals. Sikorsky concluded that the best solution was a 'remanufacturing' scheme whereby US military S-58s would receive a Westmorland-style nose and the S-61 Sea King's twin General Electric T58 turboshafts (which, for this application) could be down-rated to improve TBO).

The US Army had a number of concerns about the layout of this proposed Westmorland derivative. The US Marine Corps, on the other hand, could see many advantages. Accordingly, in May 1966, Naval Air Systems Command recommended the trade-in of USN HSS-1s Seabats and USMC HUS-1 Seahorses for rebuild into T58-powered UH-34M utility helicopters for the Marine Corps.

Although initially dubbed 'Turbine-Seahorse', NAVAIR eventually approved the name Pensacola for the 'new' UH-34Ms (this name had strong US Navy connotations but Pensacola was also a Muskogean tribe name as was Choctaw, the US Army name for the UH-34). The first unit to receive rebuilt UH-34Ms Pensacola was Marine Medium Medium Helicopter Squadron 162, the 'Golden Eagles'.

HMM 162 had deployed to the Republic of Vietnam in Jan 1963, flying their UH-34Ds from Danang until June 1965 (when their Seahorses were turned over to the VNAF). Squadron members were returned to MCAS New River, NC, to retrain on the UH-34M Pensacola. In April 1967, HMM 162 re-deployed to Danang via MCAS Futenma on Okinawa. Other Marine Helicopter Squadrons followed, trading in piston-powered Seahorses for turbine Pensacolas.

In the meantime, Sikorsky was marketing the UH-34M to export markets as their S-58M. The first response came from Canada. The RCAF had bought six UH-34As back in 1955. The newly unified Canadian Armed Forces wanted to trade in the 'A models in exchange for purchasing a larger number of remanufactured UH-34Qs (the DOD's export designation for the UH-34M). The Canadian Armed Forces UH-58Qs were locally designated CH-126B Huron. Intended for the general utility role, the CH-126Bs were finished in all-over green. The aircraft shown here is the sole training machine of the type assigned to No. 403 Helicopter Operational Training Squadron at CFB Gagetown.

The CAF CH-126Bs served only until 1974. Caught between the CH-118 Iroquois and CH-147C Chinook, the CAF found themselves with surplus utility helicopters that could do little that the Chinooks couldn't do better. In 1975, the US approved transfer of the Canadian UH-34Qs to the Fuerza Aerea Argentina.
_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on August 10, 2015, 10:58:58 AM
Just discovered "Sea Hustler" which deserves a styrene build and is way cool 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: LemonJello on August 12, 2015, 12:48:33 AM
Of all the fantastic profiles and artwork on this site, this UH-34P/CH-126B is the first that has me checking Sprue Bros for possible donor kits to turn into a physical model, in 1/48. 

Would a Huey nose be suitable?  I could procure a Revell Huey and UH-34 at reasonable cost (less than getting the Kitty Hawk Sea Sprite by itself). 

Definitely something to ponder for a future acquisition.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 12, 2015, 05:23:39 AM
Thanks guys! No higher praise for a whif profile than breaking out the styrene  :D

LemonJello: I've tried a few quick paste-ups to see what RW noses would suit. KiwiZac suggested a Seasprite. The SH-2 nose is really deep but sectioned horizontally will work, I think. I'm pretty sure that's what I'll be going with for the next incarnation.

For the Westmorland and UH-34M/CH-126B (sorry, UH-34P was a typo), a lash-up Huey nose was too 'short'. I had the Westland 30 in mind when I did the artwork ... but no kits of that, AFAIK. So, I tried a Lynx AH.7 nose. Its a little shallow but with a little padding top and bottom, might work?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 12, 2015, 05:47:00 AM
The Huey fuselage is quite a bit wider than the S-58.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 12, 2015, 09:57:02 AM
Yep, width is going to be a problem for any donor kits. Here's some sizes ...

UH-34 - Width 1.737 m; cabin width 1.20 m

UH-1C - Width 2.62 m; cabin width 2.43 m
Lynx -- Width 2.175 m (over skids); cabin width 1.78 m
Kaman - Width [unknown]; cabin width 1.76 m
Puma -- Width 5.14 m (over wheels); cabin width 1.65 m*
 -- * Poss. averaging, some sources say 1.80 to 1.60 m

The closest I could find to the UH-34's cabin width is the Kiowa (bang on at 1.20 m) but the OH-58's nose is far too shallow  :P

Pushing pixels is sooo much easier than scratching styrene  ;)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 13, 2015, 01:27:09 AM
Bell 222 cabin width 1.46m.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on August 13, 2015, 06:52:39 AM
A Huey nose and cockpit would look more period. I think the Lynx is too many modern for the timeframe. This looks so build able and would look great finished. Then there would be the gunship version.......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 19, 2015, 09:28:29 AM
Westmorland Outgrowths - The Sikorsky 'UH-34X' studies

The US Army saw the value in 'recycling' its aging Choctaw airframes but was not completely satisfied with the S-58M development as operated by the US Marines as their UH-34Ms Pensacola. Busy with other projects, Sikorsky offered the Army a few potential improvements in a desultory fashion but gained no interest.

The surprise came in late 1967 when the US Army Aviation Branch announced that it would open a contest to all American suppliers to upgrade the Choctaw fleet - the 'UH-34X' competition. Sikorsky was stunned as submissions to upgrade their helicopter were submitted by potential rivals. Bell declined to participlate in the 'UH-34X' program and offers from Brantly and Fairchild Hiller were quickly dismissed. But US Army Aviation took submissions from Vought/Sud-Aviation and Kaman Aircraft quite seriously.

Facing a PR crisis, Sikorsky pulled out all the stops. A quick submission to the 'UH-34X' program was made consisted of adding the Army's preferred crew entry and port side doors to the S-58M airframe. This concept, Model S-68 (I) was demonstrated using a UH-34D airframe as the basis for a mockup. The Army was pleased with what it saw but concerns were voiced about potential nose-heaviness -- especially with a nose-mounted armament (as exhibited on the mockup).

Sikorsky had anticipated the nose-heaviness problem and addressed this is the second part of their submission. The Model S-68 (II) was presented on paper. This concept involved substituting a S-61 main rotor hub (with S-58 length blades) as well as the Sea King's 5-bladed tail rotor. This was to take advantage of the greater power available from a completely reorganized drivetrain.

The Model S-68 (II) drivetrain was, in a sense, a miniaturized S-65 Sea Stallion layout. The Sea King's more powerful GE T58s were used but were now mounted alongside the main gearbox in S-65 fashion. The Model S-68 (II) retained the S-68 (I) crew doors but eliminated the post side door to reduce overall rebuild costs. The Model S-68 (II) was declared winner of the 'UH-34X' contest but on the understanding that Sikorsky would substitute the turbine engine of the Army's preference.

To be continued ...
_____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 20, 2015, 02:26:42 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on August 20, 2015, 04:25:10 PM
 :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 23, 2015, 05:41:41 AM


Sikorsky's concept for their S-68 series bifurcated at an early stage. The original S-68 (II) emerged as the pre-series YUH-34S Muskogee. [1] There was no actual prototype of the Muskogee since Sikorsky had already modified an S-58M to test the revised S-68 (II) engine installation.

Using modified S-58M tooling, 'production' UH-34S followed from the newly-established Sikorsky Conversion Center at Tucson, AZ. Aircraft from the first batch were dispatched to Vietnam for trials with the 174th Assault Helicopter Company at Duc Pho in Quang Ngai province. With no shortage of targets in this Viet Cong stronghold, the UH-34S fleet were soon engaged in combat. Results were mixed.

Compared with 174 AHC UH-1C Hueys, the Muskogees provided the VC with a larger target. On the other hand, despite being more powerful, the 4-bladed UH-34S were slightly quieter than the 2-bladed UH-1Cs. However, any tactical advantage was seen to be offset by the Muskogee's inferior flexible-gun weapon installation (in contrast to the large, twin sliding doors of the smaller Bell helicopter).

Fortunately, Sikorsky was already addressing a revised design as a dedicated weapons carrier. Earlier, Sikorsky had embarked upon an S-61 based helicopter gunship design study -- the DS-531 Blackhawk. When the US Army offered to fund an S-68 (II) drivetrain demonstrator, Sikorsky was able to immediately substitute its private venture modified S-58M. It was then proposed that US Army funding be applied instead to an 'armed attack' variant of the S-68 (II), substituting the tandem-seat nose devised for the DS-531.

Sikorsky's 'armed attack' proposal was accepted. To speed conversion work, the dynamics from a YAH-34S were transferred to an H-34A airframe which was in the process of having the new, tandem-seat nose grafted on. The result was the S-68T (for 'Tactical' or  'Tandem' depending upon source) demonstrator aircraft which then became the YAH-34T.

________________________

[1] The name Muskogee followed the US Army pattern of applying Muskogean tribal names to Sikorsky utility helicopters (eg: H-19 Chicasaw, UH-34D Choctaw, and UH-34P Pensacola).
_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: LemonJello on August 23, 2015, 07:26:23 AM
Oh, my. And the hits just keep on coming!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 23, 2015, 11:31:20 AM
The Apalachee (like a Mi-24? with tandem cockpit and central passengers?) is impressive! ;) Thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 23, 2015, 08:11:12 PM
The UH-34X must have been built/design in cooperation with Bell because it has that Bell look rather than Sikorsky to me. :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2015, 07:40:40 AM
Thanks folks!

Old Wombat: The forward fuselage of the 'UH-34X' (and later UH-34S) have a vaguely Bell-ish look about them. It may be the lower nose windows that gives that feel. The actual canopy glazings are taken directly from the S-58 ... they've simply been move forward and down to the new nose.

The S-69 (I) proposal (the upper image) also mounts a M5 nose turret for the M75 40mm grenade launcher -- just as some of the Vietnam-era UH-1C Hueys did.

The Apalachee (like a Mi-24? with tandem cockpit and central passengers?) is impressive! ;) Thanks!

Tophe: Quite right, the Apalachee is just like the Mi-24. In the 'Real World', though, it might be more accurate to say that the Mi-24 is just like Sikorsky's S-67 Blackhawk concept.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2015, 09:53:51 AM
Choctaw Reborn - the Sikorsky AH-34T Apalachee into Service

As with the UH-34S Muskogee, the full 'production' AH-34T Apalachee conversions lost their S-61 hubs and returned to refurbished and strengthened Choctaw dynamics. The T58 turbines were also slightly derated to spare those rebuilt gearboxes. As a result, the operational AH-34T Apalachees tended to carry rather less armament than the YAH-34Ts.

A case in point is 'Voodoo Chile' of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment's Air Troop. In contrast to the trial YAH-34Ts, this 'Blackhorse' Apalachee has dispensed with side-mounted turret systems in favour or the more reliable 'Fixed Fifties' belly armament. As shown on this 'Appy', 11th ACV's AH-34Ts usually had their split side doors removed to allow a great field of fire for their side guns (in this case, single pintle-mounted M60s).

'Voodoo Chile' retains the YAH-34T's TK-1 style pylon supports. Here a single M157 2.75" rocket launcher pod is mounted per side. This 'Appy' was probably on 'red' target/destroy missions. When flying escort for 'blue' Aerial Rifle Platoon insertions, paired rocket pods were more common.

The YAH-34X was the second YAH-34T returned to Sikorsky for experimental use. After brief use on armament installation trials, the folding tail section of this aircraft was removed. Sikorsky provided an entirely new tail unit complete with a 'fenestron' style tail rotor. The purpose of this experiment was to prove the optional fenestron tail for Sikorsky's proposed DS-531/S-67 Blackhawk attack helicopter.

The YAH-34X was intended as a one-off but did prove the fenestron concept. With trials complete, the airframe was refitted with its original tail and returned to the US Army. However, following the US withdrawl from Vietnam, the AH-34T was an aircraft without a mission. The small Apalachee fleet was withdrawn from US Army service and sent to AMARC for storage and disposal. West Germany purchased twenty-three of these aircraft.

Paid for by the German government, the three YAH-34Ts and 20 AH-34Ts were transferred to Israel in return for the trade-in of an equivalent number of UH-34A/H-34G IIIs. These aircraft entered IDF service at Palmachim in 1978. In 1985, it was decided to rebuild the surviving 21 'Nachash' ('Serpent') airframes to YAH-34T standard. Sikorsky supplied the new main gearboxes and S-61 components along with details on the YAH-34X.

Project 'Nachash 90' was completed by late 1988 with these 'fenestroned YAH-34Xs' equipping 114. tajeset at Tel Nof (AFB 8). Ironically, IDF Nachash 90s always operated in concert with 'Tzefa' ('Viper') escorts -- the Apalachee's more successful rival, the Bell AH-1 Cobra.

__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 26, 2015, 11:21:47 AM
The brand new YAH-34X is my favourite, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on September 15, 2015, 07:41:27 PM
The Kosher Hustler - the B-58i Ariyyáhu, my entry into the Extended Service Life and/or Back dated GB:
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5433.0[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5433.0[/url])

For those interested, there is also the B-58A Hustler armed with the British Blue Steel missile:
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5345.msg90554#msg90554[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5345.msg90554#msg90554[/url])


Wow apophenia, very impressive indeed!
Any chance of a depiction of the Convair B-58 Hustler offered to Australia, as a English Electric Canberra replacement, with a full complement of iron bombs and SEA camo scheme?

M.A.D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2015, 09:45:33 AM
M.A.D.: Thanks for that.

My laptop is in the shop right now, so I must wait to see what data is recoverable. If the original B-58A sideview is still there, I'll have a go at an RAAF Hustler.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on September 19, 2015, 03:44:11 PM
M.A.D.: Thanks for that.

My laptop is in the shop right now, so I must wait to see what data is recoverable. If the original B-58A sideview is still there, I'll have a go at an RAAF Hustler.

Thank's for your consideration apophenia!
After - what 81 pages of profiling, is it any wonder your poor laptop is in the workshop!
My thoughts go out to your laptop  ;)

M.A.D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 18, 2015, 03:49:05 AM
Playing with Nakajima Ki-43/Ki-44 blends by the Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. ...

(Top) Tachikawa Ki-43 Ame-koh (American): a 'dissimilar air combat training' derivative adapted to a US Allison V-1710 engine (captured at Clark Field). To maintain the centre of gravity, the cockpit was moved aft (and fitted with a Ki-44 Shoki canopy). The IJAAF decided that Ki-61s Heins would be adequate for DAST needs and the contract was cancelled.

(Bottom) Tachikawa Ki-72 Arashi (Storm): Having employed the abandoned Ki-43 Ame-koh airframe for armament-fitting trials, designer Shinjiro Shinagawa hit on the notion of installing a heavier radial engine. The new Mitsubishi Ha.112-62 'Kinsei' 14-cylinder radial was chosen for this purpose. The result was the Ki-72 Arashi. [1]

In its 'productionized' form, the Ki-72 featured the 1,500 hp Kinsei engine, stronger Ki-44 main undercarriage, and and enlarged fin and rudder. Actual production of the Ki-72-I was transferred to the Manshūkoku Hikōki K.K. at Harbin to allow Tachikawa to focus on Ki-63 airframe development.

_________________________

[1]  The Ki-72 designation had been previously applied to what would become the Tachikawa Ki-55 II 'Ida' advanced trainer.
_________________________

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 18, 2015, 03:54:58 AM
interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 24, 2015, 09:53:13 AM
'Kamibako' - Tachikawa wooden versions of Nakajima's Ki-62 & Ki-63 [1]

Having passed on its improved Hayabusa - the Ki-72 Arashi - to Nakajima subsidiary Manshukoku, Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. was free to take on fresh work. Tachikawa was commissioned by the IJAAF to help develop Nakajima's next fighter project, the Ki-62. Tachikawa's part would be to provide an alternative Ki-62 structure composed largely of 'non-strategic' materials.

The resulting design was designated Ki-62mo (for 'mokusei' or 'wooden'). Test articles constructed by Ohji Koku K.K. of Ebetsu on Hokkaido, showed that a plywood-covered, spruce-framed Ki-62mo would add 270 kg to structural weight. This prompted a revised design which combined Nakajima's wing shape to a new welded steel-tube fuselage clad with wood. The latter would take the form of two pre-formed veneer panels sandwiching narrow-diameter bamboo canes.

Once it was apparent that Kawasaki could not (or would not) provide the 1,175 hp Ha.40 V-12 engines, Nakajima abandoned the Ki-62 in favour of the radial-engined Ki-63 project. Tachikawa followed Nakajima's lead but was further along in its wooden structural study than Nakajima in productionizing its fighter.

With the radial-engined Ki-63, the Tachikawa and Nakajima designs began to diverge. For its Ki-63mo-I, Tachikawa intended to install the 1,300 hp Mitsubishi Kinsei (Ha.112-54) 14-cylinder engine driving a 3-bladed propeller. Two 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns would be synchronized to fire through that prop disc with another Ho-103 installed in each wing.

_____________________

[1] Kamibako means 'cardboard box' or 'paper carton'.
_____________________

More to come ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 24, 2015, 08:44:00 PM
Cool stuff! Glad to see you're profiling again.  :)

That Ki-62 has a distinct Heinkel look going on around the cockpit and front end.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 25, 2015, 02:41:06 AM
Interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 25, 2015, 05:30:41 AM
Thanks folks.

That Ki-62 has a distinct Heinkel look going on around the cockpit and front end.

Cheers 'north. I pinched the nose from an obliging Ki-61 Hein with a nod to the Aichi Seiran for the radiator. I'm not sure how accurate online images are of the Nakajima Ki-62 ... but 'wood panelling' aside, I haven't strayed too far from them.

I've never seen the Ki-63 project depicted. For my Ki-63mo-I, the cowling and prop came unchanged from the Aichi E16A Zuiun floatplane.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 02, 2016, 09:38:58 AM

The Ki-63ru - Saru mo ki kara ochiru (Even monkeys fall from trees) [1]

When the Ki-63mo-I concept was presented to the IJAAF, a spanner was thrown into the works. In addition to 'non-strategic' material construction, Army planners now also wanted to take advantage of Tachikawa's experience with high-altitude designs. The wooden Ki-63 now had to have an exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger.

The revised Ki-63ru design featured a  turbo-supercharger mounted in the starboard fuselage ducting compressed intake air along the fuselage portside to the intake manifold. To balance this bulk to aft, the Mitsubishi Ha.112-58 engine with an extended prop shaft and multi-blade cooling fan was introduced forward. This engine cooling fan allowed for tighter cowlings, in turn, improving aerodynamics.

The Turbo-supercharged Ki-63ru-II - Tachikawa's Tatsumaki (Tornado)

The IJAAF examined the Ki-63ru concept but rejected it poorly balanced and likely to lack performance at altitude. Revision of the design was done incrementally and in consultation with Army planners. In the first phase of what became known as the Ki-63ru-II Tatsumaki, a belly-mounted intercooler was added to the system to boost at-altitude performance. In the second phase, an entirely new wing was incorporated. This was a laminar-flow wing (the 'TH airfoil', devised by Tatsuo Hasegawa for the larger Ki-94 interceptor project) which served to shift the c/g.

For the final phase, a taller tailfin was also planned and cockpit pressurization was discussed. Despite this design resulting from IJAAF insistance, it was now apparent to Army staff that Tachikawa should concentrate its high altitude efforts on Tatsuo Hasegawa's Ki.94-II design with its larger turbo-supercharger. That was the end of the Tatsumaki.

Development work on the Ki-63 concept would continue but now as a low- and medium-altitude fighter intended to replace the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa and, eventually, Tachikawa's own Ki-72 Arashi.

_____________________

[1] The sense of Saru mo ki kara ochiru is that even experts make mistakes.
_____________________

More to come ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 03, 2016, 03:20:18 AM
Nice work
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
Cheers Greg!

'Kamibako' - The Tachikawa Ki-63mo-III Ookaze (Strong Wind)

With the cancellation of the turbo-supercharged Ki-63ru-II project, Jiro Tanaka handed further Ki-63 development over to a team led by Shinjiro Shinagawa. Much of the work on the Ki-63mo-I was revived but Shinagawa retained the Ki-63ru-II's 'TH airfoil' laminar-flow wing and the engine cooling fan. Both features were seen as useful in balancing the weight of a wooden rear fuselage and newly-specified cockpit armour.

The section of the 'TH airfoil' also lent itself to installing wing-mounted armament. Provisionally, standard armament was planned at two cowl-mounted 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns with a further four wing-mounted 12.7mm guns. An alternative interceptor armament was proposed with two cowl-mounted 12.7mm Ho-103s and a 20mm Ho-5 cannon in each wing.

Wind tunnel testing of models suggested that this new Ki-63mo-III would benefit from more tail area. A new fin and rudder were designed (based roughly on that of the Ki-63ru-II) and the opportunity was taken to move the tailplane forward on a shortened rear fuselage. Details had also been made available of Nakajima's progress on their version of the fighter - now redesignated as the Ki-84.

The Ki-84 was to be powered by Nakajima's 18 cylinder Homare engine. This new engine would not be available in time for the Ki-63mo-III but Tachikawa adapted Nakajima's ejector exhaust stub to their fighter's 14-cylinder Kinsei engine. The tailwheel design was also changed - from a Ki-44 unit to a forward-retracting type which, if hydraulics were damaged, would fall into place under its own weight. All of these features were adopted for the Ki-63mo-III prototype.

_____________________

More to come ...

___________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 08, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
Belated congratulations for this Ki-62/63 interesting family! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 12, 2016, 09:58:38 AM
Cheers Tophe.

(Top) Early production Ki-63mo-IIIa on tropical field trials at Krakor Airfield near Phnom Penh. Flown by WO (Rikugun-Jun-i) Kosuke Tsubone, this pre-production Ookaze is in standard green upper and blue-grey lower camouflage ... but has lost its tailwheel doors.

The Ki-63mo-IIIa was armed with two cowl- and two wing-mounted 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns.

(Bottom) Ki-63mo-III-Kou flown by Captain (Rikugun-Tai-i) Taii Hideaki Inayama in the air defence of Tokyo. The Ki-63mo-III-Kou introduced a pair of 20mm Ho-5 cannons in the wing positions.
___________________

More to come ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on January 14, 2016, 07:37:13 AM
Wow! :icon_surprised:

Good stuff, dude! :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2016, 11:01:18 AM
Cheers Vombatus antiquis ... and a few more Ookaze.

(Bottom) Ki-63mo-IIIb were normally armed with six 12.7mm Ho-103 machine guns (2 x synchronized, 4 x wing-mounted) but this aircraft had only one gun in each wing. In place of the extra wing guns, four under-wing rocket launch rails were mounted. Each Tachikawa Heiki (Tachikawa Weapon) rails carried a Type Ro-3 (Ro-San Dan) anti-aircraft rocket.

This Ki-63mo-IIIb was flown by 3rd Chutai, 52nd Sentai from Clark Field on Luzon. Intended for Ro-3 service trials, most of these fighters flew with the rocket rails removed to achieve higher speeds and better manoeuvrability.

(Top) Ki-63mo-IIIc, the first variant with all-cannon armament (2 x synchronized 20mm Ho-5 and another 2 x Ho-5 guns in the wings). This variant also introduced a weight-reducing finish of bleached woodwork and pearl-grey over metal parts. This Ki-63mo-IIIc belonged to the 3rd Chutai, 70th Sentai based at Kashiwa near Tokyo in April 1945.

The unknown pilot has claimed one B-29 destroyed. But, on 06 Aug 1945, this Ki-63mo-IIIc was destroyed on the ground by strafing P-51Ds of the Iwo Jima-based 21st Fighter Group.
__________________________

More to come ...
__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 16, 2016, 12:32:47 PM
Thanks for this addition.
But... do you know the even more incredible Ki-62.5? A twin-fuselage plane like the P-82 Mustang, with a Ki-62 in line engine on the port side (front on the profile, maybe without pilot/canopy) and a Ki-63 radial on the starboard side (behind on the profile)... Please show us how it was, or... I may be forced to show it myself... ??? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2016, 09:38:09 AM
Thanks Tophe.

I don't know the Ki-62.5 but it must have been a close relative of the twin-fuselaged  Ki-62.75  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 17, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
Uh? With no (external) tailplane, your Ki-62.75 seems obviously a twin-fuselage fighter  :-* :-* , thanks, but this is not obvious to see on the profile. That is why the half-radial single seat (on the fuselage behind) was my fitst thought, but you are the designer, engineer Apophenikawa!
Thanks again!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 19, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
Dying Days ... the Last of the Tachikawa Ki-63mo Ookaze fighters

The final production variant of the Ookaze was the Ki-63mo-IV. This series standardized all of the improvements of earlier models while introducing a 'universal' wing able to mount a wider range of armaments. An identification feature was the enlarged oil cooler bath and, on later
'IVs, a starter dog on the spinner tip.

The Ki-63mo-IV raised armament to 6 x 20mm Ho-5 guns but few of this initial production model were built due to Ho-5 shortages. Most were completed as Ki-63mo-IV-Kai with underwing gun pods. Almost all Ki-63mo-IV-Kai carried Ho-203 37mm cannons in their underwing pods (with upper surface 'blisters' covering the drum magazines). A handful of Ki-63mo-IV-Kais were trialled with 30mm Ho-155-II guns.

(Bottom) Tachikawa Ki-63mo-IV-Kai, 2nd Chutai, 102nd Sentai, Miyakonojo Airfield, southeastern Kyushu, April 1945. Armed with 2 x Ho-155-II 30mm underwing cannons, this aircraft also features some cockpit area replacement parts. This fighter was flown on several operational missions before being lost to a B-29 tail gunner on 13 June 1945.

The Ki-63mo-IVa model was fitted with plumbed underwing racks as standard. From the factory, the Ki-63mo-IVa was armed with 4 x 20mm Ho-5 guns. However, many frontline units removed the two wing cannons to improve performance when carrying underwing stores. Although intended for use as fighter-bombers, most Ki-63mo-IVa went to the Shimbu-tai (Special Attack Units) to be expended in suicide attacks.

(Top) Ki-63mo-IVa of the 57th Shimbu-tai (Special Attack Unit) based at Chiran, southern Kyushu. Carrying one underwing fuel tank and one 250 kg Type 92 HE bomb, this fighter was destroyed on the ground by B-25s attacking from Okinawa.

The Ki-63mo-IVb was to standardized on 30mm Ho-155-II wing guns, the Ki-63mo-IVc with podded 37mm Ho-204s. Neither of these Ookaze sub-types reached production.

____________________

More to come ...
____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on January 19, 2016, 04:42:19 PM
Great job. :)
Much as I like appearance of camo, wonder if that scheme ever did effective camouflaging. ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2016, 09:27:53 AM
finsrin: I suppose the blotches broke up the outline. But, applied over silver or natural metal ?  ???

Setting Sun ... the End of the Tachikawa Ki-63mo Ookaze fighters

One final Ookaze variant was complete ... but by Nakajima rather than Tachikawa. This was the sole Ki-63mo-Vb. The Tachikawa Ki-63mo-V series were powered by Nakajima's 18-cylinder Ha-45 Homare radial. A complex engine, the Ha-45 was also surprisingly light and compact for its output of 1,900 hp. This dictated slightly longer engine-bearers than those employed on Nakajima's metal Ki-84 Hayate fighters.

Priority was given to the cannon-armed Ki-63mo-Vb. The wings of this variant were modified to accomodate the new 37mm Ho-203 37mm cannon within the wing structure (rather than in underwing pods). The prototype Ki-63mo-Vb was completed in early June 1945 and transferred to Nakajima to have its engine and its Ki-84 cowling fitted on 09 June 1945.

On the following night, B-29s of XXI Bomber Command dropped vast numbers of HE and incidiary bombs on the Tachikawa factory (target code-name 'Modeller'). The raid was devastatingly effective. The plant buildings were largely destroyed and wooden structures stockpiled for Ki-63mo construction were perfect tinder for the incidiaries. Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. had effectively ceased to exist. [1]

At war's end, the completed Ki-63mo-Vb was found at the Tokyo plant of the Nakajima Hikoki KK. Collected on behalf of the USAAF Technical Data Laboratory (TDL), the 'Homare Ookaze' was prepared for flight testing. However, on its first flight, the engine seriously overheated and the USAAF pilot made an emergency landing. On touch-down, the starboard main undercarriage leg collapsed and a wing was heavily damaged. The Ho-204 guns were removed and the airframe scrapped.

[Top] Tachikawa Ki-63mo-Vb prototype repainted in USAAF TDL markings. Tokyo, September 1945.

The Ookaze was more thoroughly tested by US forces. Using the remains of five different Ki-63mo-IIIb airframes collected at Clark Field in the Phillipines, theTechnical Air Intelligence Unit–South West Pacific Area (TAIU-SWPA) was able to create a single, flyable Ki-63mo-III. With the war over, this fighter was sent first to Yokohama Naval Base and thence to the USAAF Air Depot at Freeman Field, IN.

[Bottom] Tachikawa Ki-63mo-IIIb in TAIU-SWPA markings, Clark Field, Luzon, August 1945.

____________________

[1] Also destroyed were the facilities of Showa hikoki kogyo KK. Showa had been working on the L2D5, a wooden DC-3 derivative. Tachikawa assisted Showa with the installation of the 1560 hp Mitsubishi HA-33 Kinsei radials in their wooden Tabby.

... Fin
____________________
Title: Dornier Do 355
Post by: apophenia on January 28, 2016, 10:19:19 AM

In October 1944, Dornier lost control of their P 254 mixed-power Do 335 development. The following month, Dornier proposed a scaled-down version, the P 275. This aircraft would retain the P 254's DB 603 in the nose but the tail Heinkel He S 011 turbojet was to be replaced by a Walter HWK 109-509 liquid-fuel rocket.

The RLM accepted the P 275 interceptor for development as the Dornier Do 355. Ordered to use as many parts from existing aircraft as possible, Dornier incorporated many Do 335 compenents as well as the canopy from Heinkel's pending Volksjäger and the tailwheel undercarriage of the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 series. The prototype Do 335 V1 was completed in late February 1945.

The Do 335 V1 made two successful flights using only its piston engine. The third flight was to begin with a 'scharfen start' to accelerate take-off. Instead, as soon as it was lit, the Walter HWK 109-509A motor exploded ... killing test pilot Robert Moßbacher and completely destroying the aircraft.

Dornier had intended to produce the P 275/I as the Do 355A Pfeilspitze (Arrowhead) interceptor powered by a DB 603LA and a Walter HWK 109-509A. The P 275/II with Jumo 213E-1 and Walter HWK 109-509C would become the Do 355B. Production of both interceptor variants was cancelled after the tragic loss of the Do 355 V1.

Rather than waste the energy already expended on the Do 355, the RLM asked Dornier to complete the second prototype as a schlachtflugzeug or ground-attack aircraft. This was done with the Walter rocket engine being displaced by FDSL 131 barbettes (from the Me 410) manned by a second crewman. The nose-mounted armament consisted of three 20mm MG151/20 cannons (with an optional 30mm MK 103 in a Motorkanone installation).

Dornier had wanted to resurrect their 'umbrella' airbrake for divebombing attacks but the RLM insisted upon a 'wobble-mounted' MG151 for additional tail protection. A Rückwärtswarngerät (tail warning radar) was planned although this was never installed. Offensive armament was to consist of three 250 kg bombs or a single, centeline bomb with two 300 litre drop tanks on underwing racks.

Dornier intended to produce the new schlachtflugzeug as the Do 355C Säbel (Sabre). The prototype Do 335 V2 was flown by test pilot, Hans Werner Lerche, on 9 April 1945. The aircraft performed well but, during the test flight, Dornier's airfield at Oberpfaffenhofen was attacked by B-17s of the 398th Bomb Group and heavily damaged. The Säbel prototype was due to be ferried to the Rechlin Erprobungstelle for official evaluation but, perhaps due to fuel shortages, this never happened.

In any case, it was clear that the German collapse was near and that the Do 355C would never enter production. The US Army overran the Oberpfaffenhofen factory in late April 1945 and found the sabotaged Do 335 V2 among the ruins.

___________________________

NB: These profiles began life as an unsuspecting Do 335 V14 by the inimitable Simon Schatz.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2016, 02:37:22 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 30, 2016, 01:55:34 AM
Very surprising, and nicely enriching the Do-335 family...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 02, 2016, 10:34:39 AM

British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) Basalisk Tactical Strike/Reconnaissance Aircraft

In 1955, Vickers submitted its distinctive Type 559 for the OR F.155. In its original Type 559A form, this fighter featured twin 'stacked' De Havilland Gyron PS.26/1 turbojets flanked by a pair of 5,000 lb.s.t. DH Spectre Junior liquid-fuelled rocket motors. Armament consisted of two Vickers Red Hebe or DH Blue Jay (Firestreak) missiles mounted above the mid fuselage.

Air Ministry concerns about armaments installation drag prompted the revised Vickers Type 559B. The Type 559B differed in having the two Gyron D.Gy.1 jets mounted side-by-side in a widened rear fuselage. Below the wing, a horizontally-arranged DSpe.D.1 Double Spectre filled the lower rear fuselage. Forward of the rocket motor was a new weapons bay to enclosed the guided missiles.

Neither Vickers OR F.155 proposal was accepted but an AirMin official did suggest that the Type 559B might make the basis for a submission to GOR.339 for a Canberra bomber replacement. This put Vickers-Armstrong in an awkward position since the firm was already backing the advanced Supermarine Type 571 for GOR.339. Accordingly, Vickers made two proposals.

The Supermarine Type 571 would form the more advanced TSR.2 submission, while the Vickers Type 559C would become the 'interim' TSR.1. Compared with its fighter ancestor, the Type 559C would have no titanium in its structure. Nor would it carry booster rocket motors. The emphasis was on simplicity of structure with durability as a secondary consideration (since it would be replaced quickly by the more advanced TSR.2 design).

The prototype Type 559C emerged in July 1961 as the BAC Basalisk. Shown is a Basalisk TSR Mk.1A of No.249 Squadron out of RAF Akrotiri in early 1965. This 'Basil' is dropping an inert Red Beard 'shape' on a Cypriot beach target before pressing on to the Larnaca Bombing Range for its second drop.

________________________

NB: This Basalisk began as 2010 Vickers Type 559 artwork by Kevin Jongen
________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on February 02, 2016, 10:38:19 AM
That looks wild and yet believable!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 02, 2016, 10:49:04 AM
Thanks kerick!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 03, 2016, 02:45:16 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 03, 2016, 03:02:17 AM
Your Basalisk drawing is beautiful, thanks! :-*
This name sounds as the French basilic (basilisk) aromatic herb, has it a meaning?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 03, 2016, 03:05:48 AM
has it a meaning?

Not quite the same as the French basilic...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 03, 2016, 01:43:18 PM
Thanks for this unexepected discovery, bringing another interest in Apophenia's drawing/name ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 04, 2016, 01:14:48 PM
has it a meaning?
Not quite the same as the French basilic...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk

Thanks Greg. There is a double entendre in a basalisk bomber, as well ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk_%28cannon%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk_%28cannon%29)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 11, 2016, 07:09:40 AM

Full disclosure ... I am not a big fan of the stacked-engined English Electric Lightning. So, when I found out that English Electric had developed a single-engined Lightning for ER.134T, [1] I had to whif it :)

English Electric put forward at least P.6 variations for ER.134T - the stacked-engined P.6/2 (in swept and delta-winged variations), two mid-wing engined twins (the straight-winged P.6B and the trapasoid-winged P.6D). [2] And then there is the single-engined P.6/1 :

So, in my whif, the English Electric P.6/1 is chosen for ER.134T in place of Bristol 188 (whose stainless steel construction, the Air Ministry was concerned might delay the research program). The prototype P.6/1 research aircraft, WG760, is powered by a Rolls-Royce RB.106 producing 19,500 lb.st in full reheat. On 25 November 1958, the P.6/1 became the first British aircraft to exceed Mach 2.

English Electric had never intended the P.6/1 to be a pure research platform. For the outset, the aircraft had been designed to be suitable as an operational fighter. The Lightning was powered by a Rolls-Royce RB.106 Tamar two-shaft turboshaft generating 21,750 lb.st. Lightning interceptors served the RAF from the F.1A of early 1960 to the longer-range F.6 which finally retired in 1988.
__________________________

ER.134T = Experimental Research, Tender, a research programme for Mach 2 flight.
__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on February 11, 2016, 08:45:24 AM
Like looks of single engine versions.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 11, 2016, 11:34:41 PM
Interesting variants.
Would you someday complete the family by a 2-engined version without nose air intake (but lateral ones)?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 12, 2016, 03:08:08 AM
I like
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: taiidantomcat on February 13, 2016, 04:30:45 AM

Full disclosure ... I am not a big fan of the stacked-engined English Electric Lightning. So, when I found out that English Electric had developed a single-engined Lightning for ER.134T, [1] I had to whif it :)

English Electric put forward at least P.6 variations for ER.134T - the stacked-engined P.6/2 (in swept and delta-winged variations), two mid-wing engined twins (the straight-winged P.6B and the trapasoid-winged P.6D). [2] And then there is the single-engined P.6/1 :

So, in my whif, the English Electric P.6/1 is chosen for ER.134T in place of Bristol 188 (whose stainless steel construction, the Air Ministry was concerned might delay the research program). The prototype P.6/1 research aircraft, WG760, is powered by a Rolls-Royce RB.106 producing 19,500 lb.st in full reheat. On 25 November 1958, the P.6/1 became the first British aircraft to exceed Mach 2.

English Electric had never intended the P.6/1 to be a pure research platform. For the outset, the aircraft had been designed to be suitable as an operational fighter. The Lightning was powered by a Rolls-Royce RB.106 Tamar two-shaft turboshaft generating 21,750 lb.st. Lightning interceptors served the RAF from the F.1A of early 1960 to the longer-range F.6 which finally retired in 1988.
__________________________

ER.134T = Experimental Research, Tender, a research programme for Mach 2 flight.
__________________________

Ive had the idea of putting an F-15 fin on a Mig-21 w Lightning wings forever as a single engine lightning, just havn't gotten around to it yet :icon_crap:

Nice work here  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 13, 2016, 09:55:34 AM
Thanks folks!

Tophe: Pass! There was a Real World proposal for a side-intakes Lightning. And it was truly hideous :o

Ive had the idea of putting an F-15 fin on a Mig-21 w Lightning wings forever as a single engine lightning, just havn't gotten around to it yet :icon_crap:

taiidan': Good approach  :)  Once you've scaled down that nose intake, the Lightning  really does take on a MiG-21 appearance.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2016, 06:16:35 AM
Rather bizarrely, the Free Syrian Army has captured 5,000-odd WW2-era MP44 automatic rifles. This already sounds like a whif ... but we can go further. What if CIA trainers organized updates for the captured Sturmgewehr?

[Top] A local Syrian MP44 upgrade with CIA-supplied Magpul Khukov replacement forward stock. This MP44 (and its polymer magazine) have been given a thorough spraying with Krylon Ultra-Flat Camo paints.

[Bottom] Syrian MP44 upgrade with Magpul Khukov polymer fore and butt stocks. This rifle has been captured by the al-Nustra Front. From the flag wrapping the barrel, the MP44's new owner appears to be a Saudi.
_______________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2016, 06:18:12 AM

Local armourers could not keep pace with demand for MP44 rifles for Free Syrian Army use. CIA advisors found willing arms factories in neighbouring countries to perform MP44 upgrades. Bulgarian MP44 upgrades were done by Arcus Co in Lyaskovets. Two Turkish firms performed similar work - TiSAS at Trabzon and MKEK at Kirikkale.

The Arcus AR-MP44 rifles were fitted with an Alpha BattleRail from Troy Industries and a Magpul butt stock with cheek riser. AR-MP44s were originally shipped with 30-round polymer magazines but these were later replaced with 75-round drum magazine similar to those issued for AK-47s.

Turkey's TiSAS lightly refurbished Syrian MP44s before installing CIA-supplied furniture - KV-14 forward stock/rails and adjustable butt stocks from Krebs Custom. The resulting Trabzon-44 was highly popular with FSA fighters.

[Top] A Bulgarian Arcus AR-MP44 upgrade fitted with an American Beta C-Mag 100-round twin-drum magazine in place of the expected 75-rd drum. Beta C-Mag and Bulgarian drum magazines proved to be the solution to both tactical and supply issues with MP44 magazine - original and polymer replacements.

[Bottom] A Turkish TiSAS Trabzon-44 MP44 update with Krebs Custom KV-14 forward handgrip/rail and adjustable butt stock. These Krebs conversions were performed at TISAS in Trabzon. Two original MP44 magazines are clipped together with a Magpul coupler.

_______________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2016, 06:19:35 AM

Only one 7.92x33mm rifle was specifically designed for the Syrian conflict. This was the Handl SCAR44 - itself, a re-designed lower receiver for the FN SCAR. Issued only to US advisors to the FSA, the Handl SCAR44 provided a 7.92x33mm rifle with SCAR-H, Mk 17 'muscle memory' for former USSOCOM personnel.

One of the Turkish MP44 updates was done by MKEK at Kirikkale. MKEK MP44 refurbishments were similar to the TiSAS Trabzon-44 but more extensively refurbished. The result was the best of the MP44 upgrades ... but at a price. Cost overruns were such that only 150 MKEK MP44/16s were delivered before the contract was cancelled. The 'Mek' was highly sought after but its 20-round box magazines were often abandoned.

[Top] Handl Defense SCAR44 fitted with an HD MK17 Advanced Fore-Rail and coloured metal mag.

[Bottom] Turkish MKEK MP44/16 with the distinctive sights and polymer furniture adopted from the Turk's domestic MPT-76 automatic rifle. Note the 20-rd metal magazine with stamped 'MKE' logo.
_______________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 20, 2016, 01:14:15 PM
Rather bizarrely, the Free Syrian Army has captured 5,000-odd WW2-era MP44 automatic rifles.

Was anyone ever able to provide an explanation as to how they got there in the first place?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 21, 2016, 04:10:14 AM
Was anyone ever able to provide an explanation as to how they got there in the first place?

I've seen two stories...

One was that the FSA captured the armoury where the MP44s had been stored since the '50s.

The second story - a bit more plausible, IMHO - is that the Sturmgewehr had been dug out of storage by the Assad regime with the idea of selling them off to Western collectors. The MP44s were stuffed into ISO containers for shipment out of Syria but UN regulations hung them up until the FSA arrived on the scene.

The only problem with story #2 is trying to imagine Assad's export efforts being thwarted by UN regs. Other international laws haven't slowed him down at all ... nor the FSA, come to that  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on February 21, 2016, 06:14:51 AM
HI, I love your camoufled MP-44. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on February 21, 2016, 02:01:46 PM
I am not sure if this has any relevance to the discussion but I do recall something about the EOKA group in Cyprus using Stg 44s to some degree.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 22, 2016, 03:37:15 AM
Was anyone ever able to provide an explanation as to how they got there in the first place?

I've seen two stories...

One was that the FSA captured the armoury where the MP44s had been stored since the '50s.

The second story - a bit more plausible, IMHO - is that the Sturmgewehr had been dug out of storage by the Assad regime with the idea of selling them off to Western collectors. The MP44s were stuffed into ISO containers for shipment out of Syria but UN regulations hung them up until the FSA arrived on the scene.

The only problem with story #2 is trying to imagine Assad's export efforts being thwarted by UN regs. Other international laws haven't slowed him down at all ... nor the FSA, come to that  :P

You missed my point:  how/when did the MP44s get into Syria in the first place? Not how did they come to light now.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 22, 2016, 04:11:37 AM

I did indeed... According to this site, the Syrian MP44s are most likely "reworked DDR stuff".

http://claus.espeholt.dk/mp44.htm (http://claus.espeholt.dk/mp44.htm)

So, probably ex-Volkspolizei weapons. Other possible candidate sources are ex-Czechoslovak Samopal or Yugoslav (although, according to Claus Espeholt, the 40,000 Yugoslav MP44s went to Libya).

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on February 22, 2016, 10:04:20 AM
There were Stugs and Panzer IV spplied to Syria post war and a few MG42 etc turning up in Iraq in the 2000s.  I wonder if a large amount of ex German gear was exported from eastern Europe in the 50s and 60s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 22, 2016, 10:15:05 AM
Later too. Apparently, the Yugoslav MP44s were in service until the mid '80s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 25, 2016, 06:47:34 AM

My take on M.A.D.'s revamped Qantas Ilyushin IL-76CFM:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6108.msg103614 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6108.msg103614) ...

In my scenario, the three Qantas IL-76CFM conversions are VH-ILQ 'Scotty Allan', VH-ILM 'Norman Brearley', and VH-ILN 'Lores Bonney'. Although not assigned to any particular airframe, the MAFFS III firefighting systems were also name - 'Black Saturday', 'Ash Wednesday', and 'Black Tuesday'.

[Top/Inset] IL-76CFM VH-ILQ shortly after arrival. As delivered, the Qantas IL-76CFMs had an overall white scheme with red vertical tail markings and pale grey cowlings.

Note that this aircraft is missings its Qantas cowling markings. Nor has the name 'Scotty Allan' been applied to the nose (where standard Ilyushin Ил-76ТД/IL-76TD markings remain).

VH-ILQ was delivered with its original Russian suite - RLS-N weather radar and an under-nose RLS-P Koopol/Duran-B navigation set. These Russian radar sets were replaced soon after arrival.

[Below] IL-76CFM VH-IMQ in its final configuration. The Russian radar sets have been replaced by a Northrop Grumman APN-241 radar - for its terrain-following capabilties and commonality with RAAF C-130J and C-27J transports). The superfluous lower radome has been replaced with a fairing for a UV line scanner (forward) and a semi-retractable Wescam MX-20 E/O turret (aft).

VH-IMQ is shown here in near-full Qantas livery. The lower fuselage has been stripped (to lessen the maintenance burden of repairing chipped paintwork) and the forward anti-glare panel has been painted over. The aircraft's name 'Norman Brearley' has been applied to the nose and Qantas logos to the rear of each engine cowling. Eventually, (likely during the first engine major overhaul) the cowlings will be resprayed in 'fuselage white'.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 25, 2016, 02:21:17 PM
I Wonder if the right comment is "surprising" or 'future"... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on February 29, 2016, 03:15:32 AM

My take on M.A.D.'s revamped Qantas Ilyushin IL-76CFM:
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6108.msg103614[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6108.msg103614[/url]) ...

In my scenario, the three Qantas IL-76CFM conversions are VH-ILQ 'Scotty Allan', VH-ILM 'Norman Brearley', and VH-ILN 'Lores Bonney'. Although not assigned to any particular airframe, the MAFFS III firefighting systems were also name - 'Black Saturday', 'Ash Wednesday', and 'Black Tuesday'.

[Top/Inset] IL-76CFM VH-ILQ shortly after arrival. As delivered, the Qantas IL-76CFMs had an overall white scheme with red vertical tail markings and pale grey cowlings.

Note that this aircraft is missings its Qantas cowling markings. Nor has the name 'Scotty Allan' been applied to the nose (where standard Ilyushin Ил-76ТД/IL-76TD markings remain).

VH-ILQ was delivered with its original Russian suite - RLS-N weather radar and an under-nose RLS-P Koopol/Duran-B navigation set. These Russian radar sets were replaced soon after arrival.

[Below] IL-76CFM VH-IMQ in its final configuration. The Russian radar sets have been replaced by a Northrop Grumman APN-241 radar - for its terrain-following capabilties and commonality with RAAF C-130J and C-27J transports). The superfluous lower radome has been replaced with a fairing for a UV line scanner (forward) and a semi-retractable Wescam MX-20 E/O turret (aft).

VH-IMQ is shown here in near-full Qantas livery. The lower fuselage has been stripped (to lessen the maintenance burden of repairing chipped paintwork) and the forward anti-glare panel has been painted over. The aircraft's name 'Norman Brearley' has been applied to the nose and Qantas logos to the rear of each engine cowling. Eventually, (likely during the first engine major overhaul) the cowlings will be resprayed in 'fuselage white'.

_________________________________


I like Apophenia!
I like it a lot!!

Particle like "terrain-following capabilities" and "the MAFFS III firefighting systems were also name - 'Black Saturday', 'Ash Wednesday', and 'Black Tuesday' "

Permission to add your art to by backstory Apophenia?

Regards
Pioneer
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 29, 2016, 10:29:49 AM
Chuffed to have my Ilyushin added to your story Pioneer. Cheers!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on February 29, 2016, 07:24:01 PM
Chuffed to have my Ilyushin added to your story Pioneer. Cheers!

No no, it is I whom am chuffed my friend!!
I have incorporated some of your backstory and awesome profile into my/our story!!

M.A.D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 04, 2016, 10:53:36 AM
M.A.D: Rough versions of the ASLAV-Recce variant I had in mind for your Alt ADF Orbat...

A 4x4 ASLAV variant assembled by GM Holden. The hull is shortened and the centre pairs of drive wheels eliminated. For 'stealth' recce, a turretless version with a Will-Burt extensible mast (like a mini Coyote). For 'sabre' recce, a turreted version - 20mm Rh202 cannon (as per Tipo 6616) in a Spz Marder (shown) or SpPz Luchs turret.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 04, 2016, 07:28:03 PM
I have an ASLAV. :))


I have a Spz Marder turret. :D


I (now) have a plan! ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 05, 2016, 03:23:31 AM
Oooo ... looking forward to seeing your ASLAV shortie in styrene!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on March 12, 2016, 01:23:02 AM
Kinda similar idea:

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3937/14999313073_cc6487952e_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 13, 2016, 04:20:29 AM
Nice to see again, Graeme!  :)

I was kind of harkening back to an old idea of mine for Litvak's AltCan concept - the C19A1 Bobcat WLAV:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg8125#msg8125 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg8125#msg8125)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on March 17, 2016, 11:47:24 AM
you fooled me! I thought those ASLAV 4x4 were real!!!  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 18, 2016, 07:43:38 AM
you fooled me! I thought those ASLAV 4x4 were real!!!  :-[

Praise indeed! Thanks Graeme  :D

They were just quick bodge-ups to suggest an idea to M.A.D for his Alt ADF Orbat. Actually, I've just realized that I left part of the portside second wheel from the original 8x8 ASLAV showing on my masted version  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 20, 2016, 11:56:34 AM

Canadair CL-94 'StarTrainer'

While preparing the Cartierville factory for licensed Lockheed CL-90 (CF-104) Starfighter production, Canadair's Advanced Projects Office proposed an advanced lead-in trainer. RCAF basic jet training was to be handled by Canadair's CL-41A Tutor. Operational training was covered by CF-104D two-seaters. But advanced lead-in training would continue to rely upon the CL-30 Silver Star, Canadair's license-built T-33 Shooting Star.

The CL-30 was a good aircraft but, to Canadair's APO staff, the Silver Star belonged to an earlier era. There was room, the design department believed, for fully modern advanced training aircraft to better match the highly demanding CF-104.

The general concept arrived at was a less demanding training employing as many CF-104 parts as was feasible. The result was the CL-94 which made use of CF-104 wings (albeit in a new, low-placed arrangement) and the cockpit section of the Starfighter in a largely unchanged nose. The latter was offered with single-seat or two-seat, dual-control cockpits.

The two-seater CL-94D (briefly known as 'StarTrainer') was put forward as a direct Silver Star replacement advanced trainer. The single-seat CL-94A was seen as what would today be referred to as a Lead-In Fighter Trainer. Both variants could be fitted with launch rails for GAR-8 Sidewinder IA missiles or wing tip fuel tanks. Both variants were to be powered by an afterburning version of the Orenda-built GE J85-CAN-40 turbojet. [1]

Unfortunately, the RCAF was not then interested in a Silver Star replacement. Brief discussions were had about adapting the CF-104 radar to the CL-30 but, in the end, this too was abandoned in favour of a similar scheme employing the CL-41R Tutor.
__________________

[1] The J85-CAN-40 produced 2,650 lbf 'dry'. With afterburning, output was to be 4,050 lbf for each engine (or, combined, nearly double that of the CL-30's single Orenda-built Nene).
__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on March 20, 2016, 01:37:18 PM
Nifty  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 20, 2016, 08:18:43 PM
Gorgeous!!  A shame such didn't get built, it probably would've reduced the accident rate NATO-wide.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2016, 02:32:42 AM
Thanks folks. More to come on Canadair Starfighter derivatives ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 21, 2016, 01:15:11 PM
A shame such didn't get built, it probably would've reduced the accident rate NATO-wide.
I tried to find with Google/Pictures "starfighter 2-seat" and I got several photographs. Is such a trainer a complete Apophenia invention (after other ones tried also)? or just the Canadian version is invented?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 22, 2016, 02:54:29 AM
This particular iteration is.  Over and above the two-seat trainer versions of the F-104, there were proposed trainer versions of the CL-41 (CL-41R) and MB.326 (MB.326C) with the F-104's radar.  As 'tis, at least some of the F-104 radar training was accomplished in some quite modified C-47's.

The MB.326C is a rather attractive design, even if it only made it to mockup status.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 22, 2016, 03:15:11 AM
The MB.326C is a rather attractive design, even if it only made it to mockup status.


I actually find it quite ugly:

(http://digilander.libero.it/air10/f104/immagini/foto/mb326c.jpg)
(http://digilander.libero.it/air10/f104/immagini/foto/curiosita_mb326c_big.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 22, 2016, 10:19:51 AM
I actually find it quite ugly:

Whereas the CC-129 Dakota radar trainer was able to maintain its svelte, fighter-like good looks  ;D

Tophe: Lots of 2-seat F-104 conversion trainers were made. My whif was supposed to be a 'lead-in' trainer ... that is, smaller, cheaper to operate, and more forgiving of trainee pilot error. The idea sprang from the 'widow-maker' reputations of the RCAF's CF-104 Starfighter - which had a loss rate amounting to nearly 40% of the Canadian fleet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 22, 2016, 10:21:27 AM
Greg,

De gustibus non disputatem est  I happen to like those lines (then again, I've worked at AerMacchi (way back when) and like their products).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 22, 2016, 01:45:47 PM
Gorgeous!!  A shame such didn't get built, it probably would've reduced the accident rate NATO-wide.


(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/LOSSES_VS_FIRST_FLIGHT.png)

(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/LOSSES_VS_HOURS.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 23, 2016, 02:14:29 AM
Tophe: Lots of 2-seat F-104 conversion trainers were made. My whif was supposed to be a 'lead-in' trainer ... that is, smaller, cheaper to operate, and more forgiving of trainee pilot error. The idea sprang from the 'widow-maker' reputations of the RCAF's CF-104 Starfighter - which had a loss rate amounting to nearly 40% of the Canadian fleet.
Thanks for the explanation!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Schwann90 on March 26, 2016, 10:07:33 AM
Do you mind if i profile your Me-209?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2016, 01:20:42 PM
Schwann90: For sure ... I'd love to see what you do with it.

BTW, did you mean my Bf 109/Mustang hybrids? http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg44510#msg44510 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg44510#msg44510)

Or were your thinking of the Ost Afrika series? (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg10625#msg10625)

And welcome aboard BTS  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on March 26, 2016, 01:31:24 PM
CC-129 Dakota --- looks like low dollar attempt to increase speed (same engines).  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2016, 01:34:01 PM
Yeah, folks may have made fun of the Pinocchio's nose but left those other Daks in the dust  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Schwann90 on March 27, 2016, 01:00:20 AM
Thank you, i meant the Mustang, you have several very nice designs but this one just looks damn neat.

EDIT: Im ''Senji'', i just realized that somewhow i was posting with an very old acount i used just to admire things here before making one with my name to post, i didnt mean this and im gonna switch back...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 31, 2016, 05:52:17 PM
Hey, mate, just letting you know I've started on my 3D interpretation blending these 2D images. ;)

(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=12872;image)
* aslav-4x4-recce-stealth.jpg (46.7 kB, 685x379 - viewed 37 times.)
(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=12874;image)
* aslav-4x4-recce-sabre.jpg (82.26 kB, 779x410 - viewed 30 times.)

Point to note: the Marder turret has the same ring diameter (+/- a tiny bit) as the ASLAV but the fitment is totally different between the 2 kits being used.


Link to build thread: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6197.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6197.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 07, 2016, 10:58:08 AM
Old Wombat: Following with great interest!

Canadair CF-104 Starfighter Developments - Orenda Turbojets

As the CL-90 was prepared for production as the CF-104, Canadair was approached by the producer of its J79 powerplant, Orenda Engines Ltd. Noting that the afterburning General Electric turbojet was not ideal for the RCAF's planned low-altitude strike role, Orenda suggested a remedy.

Orenda has studied the possibility of adapting the Starfighter airframe to the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan. But the low-altitude role planned for RCAF CF-104s suggested a simpler alternative. Orenda's own Iroquois turbojet had roughly the same diameter as the Spey. But the Spey's full-reheat thrust could be matched by the Iroquois without recourse to afterburning.

Substituting an unreheated version of Orenda's Iroquois for the licensed J79 was a matter of slightly enlarging the Starfighter's removable rear fuselage section. Weight was not an issue since removing the Iroquois' large, Solar afterburner gave exactly the same dry weight as the afterburning J79-OEL-7 - 3,850 lb. The benefit would be the fuel savings made by using the PS-13U Iroquois' dry thrust of 19,250 lb.st in place of the J79's 17,835 lb.st in afterburner.

Canadair refined the Orenda concept slightly (removing the outer of three engine shrouds) and it was submitted to the RCAF as the Starfighter UOI (for Unreheated Orenda Iroquois). A second concept, more radical deviation from the original CF-104 was put forward at the same time. This 'Starfighter Strike' was to be powered by twin Orenda PS-18 Haida turbojets. [1] The engine pods were separated from the fuselage by a new stub wing section. The standard Starfighter wings were now outer panels attaching to hoop frames around the engines. By podding the engines, much of the fuselage could be dedicated to carrying fuel.

___________________

[1] The PS-18 Haida was, in effect, a scaled-down PS-13 Iroquois. In this case, the afterburners were retained, producing 9,850 lb.st in full afterburner.

___________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: phoenix54 on April 07, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
Like the 'Starfighter Strike' concept, also gave a larger wing area, possibility of fewer 'smoking holes*'?

*Not quite urban myth, BUT.................
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 07, 2016, 10:52:02 PM
Thanks to come back to aircraft (I like only aircraft as far as I am concerned, sorry...).
I love your 2nd Starfighter/Orenda proposal, so streamlined and pretty... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2016, 04:34:25 AM
Thanks folks! And here's the next installment ...

Canadair CF-104 Starfighter Developments - Growing the Brand

Neither the 'Starfighter UOI' nor the 'Starfighter Strike' proposal appealed to the RCAF. At the same meeting, however, Canadair also proposed two 'growth' developments related to the 'Starfighter Strike'. Both were larger twin-engined aircraft with the inner, stub-wing growing into trapizoidal inner wings.

The first was another strike aircraft - the CL-205 - this time powered by twin unreheated Orenda Iroquois turbojets. This concept had a much-lengthened fuselage (resulting in the Canadair design office nickname of 'Caber'). Other than having more power than the 'Starfighter Strike', that longer fuselage of this 'UOI Strike' allowed the payload to be fully enclosed.

The second proposal - the CL-207 - was for a two-seat interceptor powered by twin reheated Rolls-Royce Spey turbofans. As with the 'UOI Strike', the armament was fully enclosed - in this case, in a retractable missile bay.

The RCAF was not interested in any engine types not yet in production. This eliminated the 'UOI Strike' for the same reasons as the 'Starfighter UOI' and the 'Starfighter Strike'. The enlarged interceptor concept was of interest but the newness of the Speys were of concern. Could, the RCAF planners wondered, those engines be replaced by the same J79-OEL-7 turbojets that were to power the CF-104 Starfighter?

The result was the Canadair CL-210 which, as the CF-111A Conquest, entered RCAF service in late 1965, replacing CF-101 Voodoos on loan from the USAF.

__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 09, 2016, 10:56:01 AM
Great!: that is a whole family!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 10, 2016, 11:47:52 PM
I actually find it quite ugly:


Whereas the CC-129 Dakota radar trainer was able to maintain its svelte, fighter-like good looks  ;D

Tophe: Lots of 2-seat F-104 conversion trainers were made. My whif was supposed to be a 'lead-in' trainer ... that is, smaller, cheaper to operate, and more forgiving of trainee pilot error. The idea sprang from the 'widow-maker' reputations of the RCAF's CF-104 Starfighter - which had a loss rate amounting to nearly 40% of the Canadian fleet.


I swear something looking a lot like that has flown over my house twice today. Looks like its been fitted with turbo props and some kind of sensor tail boom. Older RCAF colours, but no military markings that were obvious. I will try and get a pic of it if it buzzes by here again.

Edit... well this is a small world story. Turns out its a mining research company, which twigged my memory - one of the moms at my kids' bus stop is one of their pilots. I'll have to ask if it was her flying around!

(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/1/3/2690311.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on April 11, 2016, 12:09:07 AM
Resembles a MAD boom. Were they looking for iron deposits?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2016, 02:56:09 AM
Resembles a MAD boom. Were they looking for iron deposits?

Aeromagnetic surveys are used to locate all sorts of deposits.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 11, 2016, 02:58:12 AM
Resembles a MAD boom. Were they looking for iron deposits?

I don't think so - more like training a new pilot, they were doing touch & goes it seemed. She lives nearby, maybe she was taking aerial photos of her house! haha!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 11, 2016, 03:15:34 AM
Owner is: CGG AVIATION (CANADA) LIMITED.

(http://skiesmag.com/images/news/article_files//167489247862250.jpg)

This Basler BT-67 Surveyor, an ex-Douglas DC-3C owned by CGG Aviation (Canada) Limited of Ottawa, is shown here at Muskoka, Ont.’s Little Norway Memorial Airport on May 10, 2014. A recent Basler BT-67 conversion completed in 2012, the aircraft belongs to one of the world's largest geoscience companies. CGG provides geophysical survey services to the oil, gas and mineral sectors with a large fleet of aircraft and ships. Its Canadian air division includes a de Havilland Canada Dash 7, a CASA 212-CC50, a Diamond DA-42, three Cessna 208s, and a Cessna 404. Most of these were formerly operated by Fugro Aviation. In September 2012, CGG Veritas acquired Fugro’s Geoscience Division, assuming aircraft operations in January of 2013. 

I see the CASA 212-CC50 fly over several times a year.

Here is a brief video of ole needle nose:

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpaEKYqK2RI#)

Details can be found here (http://C-GGSU Canadian Aircraft Registration Details).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on April 11, 2016, 03:23:11 AM
Resembles a MAD boom. Were they looking for iron deposits?

Aeromagnetic surveys are used to locate all sorts of deposits.

Actually they are looking for the excessively large fat pensions our politicians get after 5 years of doing nothing. Zippo. Zilch. Zero work.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2016, 03:28:08 AM
Great!: that is a whole family!

Maybe...but will we see a carrier based variant? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 11, 2016, 08:07:57 AM
They are, basically, MAD booms.

Because all metals, not just iron, cause small variations in the Earth's magnetic field they can be detected.
I doubt it can tell you what, but it can certainly tell you where there are large deposits of metals (ie: deposits large enough to mine economically).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on April 11, 2016, 11:23:56 AM
Resembles a MAD boom. Were they looking for iron deposits?

Theys are, basically, MAD booms.

Thanks for your words, making me dream of a Twin-Lightning that would feature a MAD twin-boom device...! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2016, 02:41:15 AM
"Swiftly and Surely" - 430 Squadron CA-164M Skyhawk taxis in at KAF, Dec 2008

This was going to be part of my Canadair series but I got side-tracked. Long story short, Canada's New Fighter Aircraft (NFA) Project plays out differently and the Hornet is not chosen.

Canadair parent company, General Dynamics, offers its F-16A Falcon for the NFA contest but also sweetens the pot. General Dynamics' scheme is to also have Canadair modernize Canada's small but aging fleet of ex-RCN CA-164F (A-4F) Skyhawk attack aircraft.

The modernized Skyhawk concept is to extend the fuselage to TA-4F length while inserting an F-16-style cockpit to maximize commonality. This plan is excepted and, as a result, Canada ends up fielding three combat jet types - the revised CA-164M Skyhawk attack aircraft, the CF-166 Falcon fighter, and the CF-160 Tornado (Tornado F3) interceptor.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 09, 2016, 03:41:46 AM
Nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on May 09, 2016, 03:48:41 AM
^what he said!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2016, 09:39:32 AM
Thanks folks. My original plan was a little more complicated. Along with the F-16 cockpit, the CA-164M Skyhawk was to be re-engined with a Turbo-Union RB.199 Mk102 turbofan. (I assume there was a Real World Mk102 but I've never heard of one.)

My Mk102 would be a non-afterburning version of the Orenda-built RB.199 Mk103 in the CF-160A Tornado complete with the Tornado's reverse-thrust buckets. The RB.199 is smaller in diameter than the original J52 (28.3 in vs 38 in) so I was imagining Orenda's usual sheathing approach being adapted to directing cool air around the engine to reduce the CF-164M's IR signature.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 09, 2016, 02:34:55 PM
The F-16 cockpit gives a very modern look to the A-4, let me buy two dozens for a billion $...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on May 09, 2016, 03:10:23 PM
The F-16 cockpit gives a very modern look to the A-4, let me buy two dozens for a billion $...

Yes, that cockpit change does modernize its look.  Good candidate to do in styrene !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on May 10, 2016, 01:19:57 AM
Very nice one!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on May 10, 2016, 10:31:33 AM
I like this idea! Another for the "gonna do" list!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 11, 2016, 06:46:12 AM
It's just scary how right that Viper canopy etc. looks on a Skyhawk

That's some truly inspired genius!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2016, 01:38:50 PM
Thanks folks!  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 14, 2016, 05:15:19 AM
Reminds me a little of this one:

(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/Cutaway_Douglas_A4_Stealth_grande.jpg~original)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 23, 2016, 12:00:55 PM
Okay, that A-4X has to be done! But, meanwhile, you asked about a P-40 using same floats as the Spitfire seaplane:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=904.msg107940#msg107940 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=904.msg107940#msg107940)

I present the Curtiss AP-40B 'SeaHawk'

Below: A Curtiss AP-40B 'SeaHawk' of the 48th Fighter Group newly arrived at Guadalcanal in mid-October 1942. Deployed to cover the US Army's 164th Infantry Regiment, the AP-40Bs operated from floatplane tenders off the coast. Ironically, Guadalcanal 'SeaHawks' are best remembered for their participation in the Battle for Henderson Field.

The AP-40B was a quick adaptation of Curtiss P-40B airframes by the Edo Aircraft Corporation. The initial designation was PA-1 in a new USAAF 'Pursuit, Amphibian' category. However, before the prototype conversion had flown, the aircraft was redesignated AP-40B as an Amphibian sub-type of the P-40B pursuit.

The Army's first WW2 float-fighter unit had previously been the 48th Bombardment Group (Light). After conversion onto P-40s, the unit relocated to McChord Field in Washington State. Basic float training was undertaken at the nearby American Lake Seaplane Base with advanced training at the Seaplane Base at Naval Air Station Seattle (Sand Point).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 23, 2016, 12:35:10 PM
Nice silhouette, very harmonious! :-*
I am not sure this is very efficient in dogfighting, but in dreams this is just perfect.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 23, 2016, 12:44:19 PM
Maybe not as pretty as the floaty Spit but very funky! 8)

Like the Spit, a good short-order filler for a perceived need.

As a fan of the P-40, I really like the look of this. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on May 23, 2016, 01:06:36 PM
Cool, however as to basing, NAS Seattle at Sand Point would be more likely for training as the first Catalina to arrive
at the seaplane base at Whidbey didn't arrive until December 1942, and then it had to land out in the bay as the harbour
was choked with logs.

 :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 23, 2016, 11:43:00 PM
however as to basing, NAS Seattle at Sand Point would be more likely for training as the first Catalina to arrive
at the seaplane base at Whidbey didn't arrive until December 1942
it depends in which universe you live, in my dreams the date of arrival at Whidbey is 2042... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on May 24, 2016, 12:27:47 AM
however as to basing, NAS Seattle at Sand Point would be more likely for training as the first Catalina to arrive
at the seaplane base at Whidbey didn't arrive until December 1942
it depends in which universe you live, in my dreams the date of arrival at Whidbey is 2042... ;)

I'll have a drive up (it's about a 90 minute drive north of me) in 26 years and let you know if a Catalina arrives.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 24, 2016, 04:54:26 AM
Love the AP-40B 'SeaHawk' - now do a later model one based on the longer fuselage P-40N / Kittyhawk Mk IV.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 24, 2016, 09:41:52 AM
Cool, however as to basing, NAS Seattle at Sand Point would be more likely for training as the first Catalina to arrive
at the seaplane base at Whidbey didn't arrive until December 1942, and then it had to land out in the bay as the harbour
was choked with logs.

Changed! Thanks Jon. Good to get the timeline right ... and best to avoid the log sorts and Davis Rafts  ;)

Love the AP-40B 'SeaHawk' - now do a later model one based on the longer fuselage P-40N / Kittyhawk Mk IV.

I was considering an AP-40E for the final phase of the Aleutians campaign ...  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 31, 2016, 11:16:21 AM
As promised, the Curtiss AP-40E 'SeaHawk' for the Aleutians.

The Curtiss AP-40E used the Hawk 87A airframe (in place of the AP-40B's Hawk 81). Compared with the earlier SeaHawk, the AP-40E adaptation featured a number of major changes.

The Edo floats were essentially the same but the float pylons were shortened (reflecting the higher thrustline of the Allison V-1710-39 powerplant. The revised pylons also incorporated the engine coolant radiators (the AP-40B's undernose radiator 'scoop' having had a tendency to collect sea water on take-off runs). The AP-40E's oil cooler remained under the nose (but was moved back to fair into the wing centre-section leading edge).

Another change was in tail assembly. The AP-40's ventral fin provided the needed side area but could also slow take-off runs should it 'dig in' to choppy seas. Accordingly, the AP-40E abandoned the ventral fin approach in favour of an extended tail. This provided sufficient side
area and employed standard P-40E vertical fin and rudder surfaces.

The AP-40E was considered a success but never fought outside of the Aleutian campaign. Opportunities for aerial victories were rare although there were confirmed kills of two Japanese Mitsubishi A6M2-N Rufe floatfighters over Attu Island. Mostly the AP-40Es were used in the close support role. After the retaking of Kiska Island, the 'E model SeaHawks provided aerial defence of the Aleutians until mid-1944 when they were finally withdrawn from service.


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 31, 2016, 11:25:59 AM
VERY Beautiful!  :-*

The AP-40E's oil cooler remained under the nose (but was moved back to fair into the wing centre-section leading edge).
Yes, the new nose makes the difference, with enhanced beauty, thanks!

Another change was in tail assembly. The AP-40's ventral fin provided the needed side area but could also slow take-off runs should it 'dig in' to choppy seas. Accordingly, the AP-40E abandoned the ventral fin approach in favour of an extended tail. This provided sufficient side area and employed standard P-40E vertical fin and rudder surfaces.
I noticed this difference at first glance, and your explanation is good, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 31, 2016, 11:33:56 AM
Very nice, extended rear fuselage as on the late P-40F's and the P-40L and P-40M?  I wonder if one of these trialed the vertical stabilizer fillet that appeared on the P-40K?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 31, 2016, 12:07:54 PM
Nice one, mate! :)

Sensible conversion but I miss the big chin. :icon_crap:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 01, 2016, 02:15:36 AM
Love the AP-40E :-*

Any chance of some RAAF ones?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 01, 2016, 11:01:29 AM
but I miss the big chin.
So different feelings... (The big chin removal was the very reason of my loving this profile)... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 02, 2016, 07:40:52 AM
Thanks folks!

Any chance of some RAAF ones?

Sorry Greg ... the Curtiss AP-40E never served outside of the Aleutians. The next best thing would by the RAAF's Kittyhawk F.Mk IIIP (P for Pontoon). Based on the P-40N-5-CU Warhawk airframe, the Kittyhawk IIIP was otherwise similar to the earlier AP-40E SeaHawk.

Australian service came about when the RAAF concluded that it would require a float-fighter for use in New Guinea. The USAAF was set to receive a dozen AP-40N-5-ED SeaHawks but was more than happy to relinquished them after the end of the Aleutian campaign. The RAAF Kittyhawk IIIPs deployed to New Guinea with No. 88 Squadron (as part of No. 9 Operational Group). The first 'FloatHawk' missions were air support operations flown towards the end of the Huon Peninsula campaign.

Shown here is the first Kittyhawk IIIP after assembly at Aircraft Erection Depot Townsville. The aircraft was test-flown from the Platypus Channel Eastern Breakwater Pier before being delivered to the RAAF in late Sept 1943.

Old Wombat: Apologies, still no sea-scooper nose ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 02, 2016, 11:20:45 AM
Beautiful also on the P-40N basis! :-*
Thanks for this aesthetic surgery turning ugly ones into beauties... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: lauhof52 on June 02, 2016, 07:30:29 PM
excellent work!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 02, 2016, 08:07:54 PM
A lot of interesting works here,
I really like the metal fatique impression and the texture.Nicely done!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 02, 2016, 11:15:34 PM
Old Wombat: Apologies, still no sea-scooper nose ;)

No need to apologise, I understand the logic of it completely.

I just happen to prefer the aggressive look of the jutting, macho chin of the P-40 rather than the wimpy, hand-wringing clerical look of the chinless AP-40.

;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 04, 2016, 05:01:54 AM
 :) :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 04, 2016, 05:11:39 AM
Hmmm...maybe some floatplane P-40s could make it into civilian schemes for the post war revival of the Schneider Trophy (Non Military GB Suggestion)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 04, 2016, 12:06:14 PM
maybe some floatplane P-40s could make it into civilian schemes for the post war revival of the Schneider Trophy (Non Military GB Suggestion)
And maybe the winner is here! (of the Scheider Trophy II and/or the Non-Military GB) ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on June 04, 2016, 02:31:49 PM
Hmmm...maybe some floatplane P-40s could make it into civilian schemes for the post war revival of the Schneider Trophy (Non Military GB Suggestion)

That almost sound like a future GB, Post War Schneider Trophy competition, maybe with different classes, sprint, long range, light and heavy.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 04, 2016, 09:29:43 PM
I really like your P-40 Sea Hawk permutations, Apophenia! The first one is especially nice and the "modernization" done to the second one is eminently creditable!

Great stuff for this P-40 fan!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 05, 2016, 04:03:49 AM
Hmmm...maybe some floatplane P-40s could make it into civilian schemes for the post war revival of the Schneider Trophy (Non Military GB Suggestion)

That almost sound like a future GB, Post War Schneider Trophy competition, maybe with different classes, sprint, long range, light and heavy.

Racing GB which includes such ideas has been suggested a number of times but never gets up.  There should be no reason why they couldn't fit into the current Non-military GB though.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2016, 04:44:44 AM
Thanks folks. Hmmm, post-WW2 Schneider Trophy ... gotta do something for that!

Origins of the AP-40 SeaHawk Float Fighters

The idea of Curtiss Hawk monoplanes on floats originated with the Seahawk II [1] concept. In early 1937, Curtiss proposed an export Model 75 Hawk on Seagull float gear. Designated Model 75HP and aimed at sales to China, this proposal was dubbed the 'Yangtze Hawk'.

The 'Yangtze Hawk' was to be powered by a Curtiss-Wright  GR-1820-G3 rated at 875 hp for take-off, and 840 hp at 5,500 feet. Standard undercarriage would be a single main pontoon and twin wingtip floats. Alternatively, fixed, spatted main legs and a fixed tailwheel could replace the float gear.

Due to the structural complexities of the all-metal Hawk 75, it was assumed that Curtiss would build these aircraft with final assembly undertaken by CAMCO in Nanking. Unfortunately, China did not take up the Model 75HP concept (although it did proceed with the Model 75M land fighter).

Seahawk II

The Model 75HP concept with Seagull float gear was eclipsed by a simplied approach - the Hawk Model 75P on twin Edo floats. This new design was intended as a biplane Hawk II replacement for the Colombian Air Force with possible sales to Siam as well. In the end, a single Model 75P was flown but no orders for this Hawk float-fighter appeared (the Model 75P was later converted into the more powerful Model 75Q land fighter demonstrator).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 05, 2016, 05:00:18 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 05, 2016, 06:28:32 AM
Mmmm it looks so natural...lovely  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dy031101 on June 05, 2016, 08:51:07 AM
Love the Seahawk ideas  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on June 06, 2016, 04:45:31 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2016, 06:39:34 AM
Thanks folks! And now for something completely different ...

The sad saga of the inline-engined Brewster XF3A-1

Over on Secret Projects, there has been some speculation about an "Allison-powered Brewster Buffalo". http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27047.0.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27047.0.html)

This V-1710-powered 'Buffalo' was, of course, Brewster Aeronautical Corporation's P.22A project. Less well-known is that a P.22A prototype (of sorts) was actually completed and flown in April 1939.

Now, a photograph of the P.22A has emerged from the Smithsonian NASM Archives' Dayton T. Brown Collection (Series 2). The photo shows the P.22A - or XF3A-1 as it is marked - at the Roosevelt Field final assembly facility in late March 1939.

The aircraft was designated XF3A-1 because, in reality, the airframe was the prototype XF2A-1 (451) returned to Brewster on loan from the US Navy. To Brewster Aeronautical, the realized P.22A project was the Brewster Model 139V (presumably 'V' for V-12 engine). Detail design on the Allison conversion was performed by Raymond D. MacCart.

Despite considerable rearrangement of internal equipment, the XF3A-1 was noticeably nose-heavy and, in consequence, manoeuvrabilty was poor compared with the in-service F2A-1. When testing was cancelled, the XF3A-1 was scheduled to be rebuilt to F2A-2 standards. That never happened. By then, events had overtaken the portly Brewster fighter and, stripped of its powerplant, the sole XF3A-1 languished at Brewster's Newark, NJ hangar until 1942 when it was scrapped.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 06, 2016, 11:10:40 AM
Thanks for revealing us this beauty! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on June 06, 2016, 12:03:02 PM
Pretty!  You'd really need to extend the tail aft to get it back into balance, with respect to both cg and aerodynamic balance.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 07, 2016, 03:37:50 AM
Oh you could fool people with that 'photo' ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2016, 04:55:55 AM
Oh you could fool people with that 'photo' ;)

I'm relying on the rivet-counters to notice that the Allison's prop is turning the wrong way  ;)

Evan: Too true. Of course, Brewster Aeronautical already knew that they'd face balance problems. The XF2A-1 prototype was available for conversion to  Allison V-1710 because of an earlier mishap.

In late 1938, the US Navy had loaned the XF2A-1 back to Brewster for experimental purposes. Brewster re-engined the XF2A-1 with a 1,050 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-66 Twin Wasp. The goal was to test concepts for Brewster's P-24 project. To that end, the Twin Wasp was given with an extension shaft and fitted with an aerodynamically-clean ducted cowling.

Attached is the only known photograph of the revised XF2A-1 in flight. That test flight was very brief as engine temperatures soared due to the cooling inefficiencies of the radial cowling design. The engine failed completely as test pilot, Ralph Romaine, circled to return to Roosevelt Field.

During a dead-stick landing, the aerodynamic advantages of the new cowling turned into something of a liability. Gliding in faster than anticipated, Romaine landed long and had to hit his wheel brakes. The now-nose-heavy XF2A-1 immediately tipped up onto its spinner. The impact damaged the engine mounts, broke the engine crankshaft , and ruined the propeller.

After this fiasco, Brewster quietly abandoned its proposed P-24 project. The damaged XF2A-1 was supposed to be rebuilt for the US Navy but Brewster had higher priorities in productionizing the F2A-2. In the end, as we know, the engineless XF2A-1 would be rebuilt as the Allison-powered XF3A-1.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2016, 10:16:53 AM
Apparently, Dayton T. Brown redesigned the XSBA-1, first as a 2-seat fighter, then as a single-seat fighter. This predated Brown'ss design of the XF2A. No clue what those SBA designs would have actually looked like, but here's my take on the single-seater -- the XSA-1. [1]

Mine is probably a bit more conservative than what Brown had in mind. I have assumed a common design that could be readily produced in either configuration - basically, the single-seat having the rear cockpit paneled over. Brown was considering a single-seat version fitted with a "semi-bubble canopy".

Again, I have no idea of what such a canopy would have looked like. Maybe something akin to the
Gloster F.5/34? Or maybe something more like the slightly later Grumman G-34/XF5F-1 Skyrocket?
________________________

[1] The US Navy 'S' for Scout designation was short-lived ... but seemed appropriate for a potential 1-/2-seat shipboard fighter. AFAIK, the Grumman SF-1 Fifi variant was the only aircraft to have the plain Scout designation applied.
________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 09, 2016, 11:28:05 AM
Thanks for all this! It is so uncommon, is this all Photoshop dreams of nowadays? or unknown archives of that time?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 10, 2016, 03:08:19 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 11, 2016, 12:18:31 PM
Thanks for all this! It is so uncommon, is this all Photoshop dreams of nowadays? or unknown archives of that time?

Tophe: All strictly unknown archive material from that time. What is this "Photoshop" you speak of?  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 11, 2016, 12:20:11 PM

Dayton Brown saw potential in the Brewster Model 139 as the basis for a lightweight fighter. This Project 24 concept was explored with the US Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics but the BuAer saw no real role for lightweight shipboard fighters.

Brown then more fully fleshed-out his P-24 lightweight fighter notion as a potential export product. The idea behind what became the Brewster Model  was to re-use the Brewster Model 139 wings and empennage largely unchanged. A new, slimmer fuselage would be tailored to the new Ranger V-770 air-cooled V-12 engine. With supercharging, the Ranger-powered fighter was expected to acheive 340 hp at altitude.

The first nibble of interest came from the French Purchasing Commission who saw the lightweight Brewster as a back-up to their Caudron C.714 Cyclone. The project kicked into high gear when it was decided to power the fighter with the French Renault 12R engine instead of the delayed US Ranger powerplant.

The Brewster Model 424A Bruant (Bunting) - was to be armed with two (or four) 7.5mm MAC 1934 guns in the wings and twin synchronized 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons. Armament and engines would be installed upon arrival at French Bases de stockage. As it happens, France fell before the prototype P-24 was even completed.

In the meantime, Ray MacCart had been implementing NACA suggestions to reduce drag on the F2A. The result was the XF2A-5 which featured Brown's 'semi-bubble' canopy and a 'cleaned up' airframe. Most noticeable was a longer cowling to accommodate fan-cooling for the Cyclone radial. Great attention was paid to the smooth abutment of skin panels and the wheelwells were faired.

The XF2A-5 did everything that was expected of it. Unfortunately for Brewster Aeronautical, XF2A-5 performance was still judged inferior to that of the Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat and no order for 'Super Buffalo' production was received.

____________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 12, 2016, 03:35:57 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 12, 2016, 12:44:06 PM
Thanks for all this! It is so uncommon, is this all Photoshop dreams of nowadays? or unknown archives of that time?
Tophe: All strictly unknown archive material from that time. What is this "Photoshop" you speak of?  ;)
Ahem, this looks like counter-smile ??? , and I still don't know if this is archives or dream (I refuse the negative word "fake"). Anyway I love your profile of streamlined Buffalo :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 13, 2016, 02:02:11 AM
Wow you've been creating some amazing wonders, Apophenia!

Your Seahawk II in that fetching NMF is stunning and I really like your latest Brewster concepts too.

I'm bowled over by the knowledge behind these delightful works and wondering why it never occurred to me before to put an Allison on a Buffalo. That is absolute genius in my book!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on June 13, 2016, 07:29:03 AM
Nice profiles ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2016, 09:09:03 AM
Thanks folks.

Brian: Putting an Allison in the Buffalo was great fun as a whif. I'm just stunned that Brewster actually consider the idea for real!

... wondering why it never occurred to me before to put an Allison on a Buffalo.

A 'Super Buffalo' into Service

A variation on the 424A Bruant light fighter for the French was the Brewster Model 424G (P-24G) Brétailleur (Duelist). Using Bruant wings and empennage, the Brétailleur was to have a more corpulent fuselage to accommodate a Gnome-Rhône 14M Mars twin-row radial engine. A further develpment was the P-24N with a larger-diameter Gnome-Rhône 14N. That concept led to the Twin Wasp-powered P-28/F4A Brigand shipboard fighter prototype.

The XF4A-1 was a light fighter only by American standards. The XF4A-1 could be seen as an evolution of the XF2A-5 concept. As with the XF2A-5, the XF4A-1's engine was fitted with an extension shaft. In the case of the XF4A-1, the R-1830 was fan-cooled. To counter the weight of the Twin Wasp and its cooling fan, the rear fuselage was extended.

Compared with the XF2A-5, the XF4A-1 was a great success but it lacked the performance edge to be the 'Zero Killer' that Dayton T. Brown had been counting on. Pax River Navy test pilots were also critical of control and visibility on simulated carrier approaches. More work was needed.

The XF4A-2 incorporated a sliding bubble canopy to improve visibility but, if anything, this worsened slow-speed control. This prototype was reworked as the XF4A-3 with a revised rear fuselage and a completely new empennage. The Buffalo-style tailfin and rudder was abandoned in favour of a taller unit reminiscent of that used on the production SBN divebombers.

The F4A-3 was ordered into production for the US Navy but Brewster Aeronautical was very slow in delivering completed airframes and workmanship was often poor. In the event, almost all of the Brigands went to Marine Corps squadrons in the Pacific.

Shown here are the XF4A-1 prototype and an F4A-3A Brigand which replaced the F2A-3s of VMF-222.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 13, 2016, 11:14:16 AM
The bubble-Buffallo is cute! like an elegant pig lady... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 13, 2016, 11:53:06 AM
Really liking this Brewster concept. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 13, 2016, 04:43:19 PM
That bubble-top Brewster is a real stunner!

You hit on one of my favorite whiff methods - adding an updated canopy to an old favorite. You've done it much more artistically than I ever could and I bet if you showed people this picture, they'd think it was a real aircraft!

Using the name Brigand was a very nice touch and fits this baby to a T!

Most excellent, Apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 13, 2016, 05:50:10 PM
Well, this is  really interesting and look soooo good !  :-* good job !
l took the liberty to make a small change,I hope you don't mind.

Alex

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 14, 2016, 03:13:52 AM
Love the bubble canopy one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on June 14, 2016, 03:39:37 AM
Next you could try stretching the rear fuselage so it looks more like the Boeing Model 278A/XP-32.  ;)

(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BTS/278A_XP-32_01.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2016, 03:50:20 AM
The bubble-Buffallo is cute! like an elegant pig lady... ;)

And who could ask for a greater compliment than that!  ;D

Brewster Aeronautical and the Corsair

With no suitable replacement for the F4A Brigand in the offing, Brewster Aeronautical was assigned licensed-production of the Vought Corsair. Cockpit visibility from the early-model F4U-1 was poor due to its 'birdcage' canopy design. Brewster's 'fix' was to adapt the bubble canopy from the F4A to the Corsair. The result was the F5A-1. Brewster referred to this fighter as the Battler but, invariably, it was dubbed the 'bubble-top' Corsair.

Another flaw in the Corsair design was that its reverse-gulled wings caused the aircraft to 'float' while trying to land-on. Dayton Brown saw an opportunity here and began a more extensive redesign of the Corsair. While F5A-1 production was beginning, Brewster design staff began 'rearranging' Corsair components.

The big change was adapting the Corsair fuselage to the 'uncranked' wings of the SB2A divebomber. Only the outer main  panels of the wings were used, with the main undercarriage wheels modified to retract into the fuselage. The fuselage itself was also heavily revised. The entire cockpit was moved forward and was now bracketed by fuel tanks. The forward tank was a shortened F4U unit, the rear tank formed the supports for the pilots seat and cockpit floor.

A prototype of this fighter - the XF6A-1 Bruiser - was built and flown to the Naval Air Test Center at NAS Patuxent River. NATC test pilots were very appreciative of the changes made and recommended that production of the F6A Bruiser be made a priority. NATC was overruled by  the Bureau of Aeronautics - the BuAer believing that the US Navy's shipboard fighter needs could be met with the Grumman F6F Hellcat - and the prototype XF6A-1 was the sole Bruiser flown.

___________________________

BTW: The 'bubble-top' Corsair and XF6A-1 Bruiser began life as an excellent F4U profile by Thomas Tullis.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2016, 03:52:16 AM
Many thanks for the Boeing Model 278A/XP-32, Jon.  It really does look like the spawn of a Buffalo and a Peashooter!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on June 14, 2016, 04:02:04 AM
Many thanks for the Boeing Model 278A/XP-32, Jon.  It really does look like the spawn of a Buffalo and a Peashooter!  :)

Yep, and ya gotta love the the horizontal tail-surfaces plan-view, very 247, early 299.  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2016, 10:18:58 AM
While building the 'bubble-top' F5A-1, Dayton Brown's thoughts turned to a 2-seat trainer version of this demanding fighter. The redesign simply places a student pilot's cockpit in the position of the main fuel tank. Endurance would be greatly reduced but this was though acceptable since the aircraft could carry a drop tank for extra fuel.

To conserve engine stocks for combat types, the F5A-1's R-2800-10W engine was replaced with a lighter and lower-powered P&W R-1830-90 radial with a single-stage supercharger. The rear cockpit of this FNA-1 'Corsair Trainer' remained identical to that of the F5A-1. One prototype conversion of the XFNA-1 was created from components of two damaged F5A-1s. The Navy saw the utility of such a fighter-trainer but would not give Brewster an order. On 19 May 1944, the Navy cancelled Brewster's Corsair contract and took control of both Brewster facilities for the duration of the war.

In October 1945, Brewster Aeronautical regained control over its factories. To satisfy debts, the Long Island facility was sold off. The Johnsville, Pennsylvania plant was largely converted to civilian, non-aviation related activities. But Brewster, had one final kick at the aviation can. Stockpiles of Corsair parts were available both at the Johnsville plant and through surplus sales. The firm decided to pursue its FNA-1 concept as a direct Corsair conversion program.

The result was a 'Corsair Trainer' with the full power of the F4U's P&W R-2800 engine. The US Navy agreed to have two batches of stored F5A-2s and F5A-3s rebuilt as FN2A-1 2-seaters. The contract was predicated upon fulltime in-factory Navy inspectors and substantial fines for delayed re-delivery of completed airframes. All 32 FN2A-1s on ordered were delivered to the Navy by the end of 1948. The 'Corsair Trainers' proved most useful during the Korean conflict when they were used to 'refresh' returning veteran pilots. By then, the FN2A-1 trainers had been redesignated as TF5A-2s and TF5A-3s.

Shown are the XFNA-1 'Corsair Trainer' prototype in April 1944 and a TF5A-3 of VFATU-2, an Operational Flight Training Squadron based at Cabanas Field, TX, in early 1953.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 14, 2016, 11:06:49 AM
 :-* Lovely bubble-trainer Corsairs! Thanks for dreaming/drawing/painting this way!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2016, 11:31:57 AM
KiwiZac mentioned a backstory for a tricycle geared Supermarine Attacker. I have no such backstory but 'Zac's concept put me in mind of a straight-winged Swift.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3359.msg109710#msg109710 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3359.msg109710#msg109710)

So, here it is: the Attacker Trike. I based the images on the Czech Master Resin kit box (with artwork done by Juanita Franzi ... I think).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on June 14, 2016, 04:28:19 PM
That was quite a ride! Was going to say how great the F4A-3 was until the Corsairs came along but then that Supermarine......  :-* :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: phoenix54 on June 15, 2016, 03:57:18 AM
KiwiZac mentioned a backstory for a tricycle geared Supermarine Attacker. I have no such backstory but 'Zac's concept put me in mind of a straight-winged Swift.
[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3359.msg109710#msg109710[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3359.msg109710#msg109710[/url])

So, here it is: the Attacker Trike. I based the images on the Czech Master Resin kit box (with artwork done by Juanita Franzi ... I think).


Cracker! No more scorched decks!!!!   ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 16, 2016, 10:52:17 AM

Britain's Fleet Air Arm went to war with biplane torpedo bombers - the venerable Fairey Swordfish and the conceptually obsolescent Fairey Albacore. The attack on Pearl Harbor revealed an urgent need for more modern torpedo bombers for the Fleet Air Arm in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

To speed development of the new torpedo bomber, existing components were to be combined. The fuselage of the Albacore would be mated to the wings of Fairey's monoplane Battle light bomber. The result was the Fairey Amberjack Mk.I. [1]

Performance of the Amberjack Mk.I was roughly equivalent to the US Navy's Douglas TBD and the Japanese Nakajima B5N 'Kate'. The Bristol Taurus-powered Amberjack Mk.I and projected Mk.II (with P&W Twin Wasp) were considered interim types. The 'final' Amberjack Mk.III - to be powered by a Bristol Hercules - was to be brought into production as soon as possible.

The availability of US Grumman Avengers made the Amberjack Mk.III redundant (and allowed Fairey to concentrate of developing the more modern Barracuda and Firefly types). The Royal Navy's Amberjack Mk.Is served out their time on patrol in the Indian Ocean. At one stage, consideration was given to 'unshipping' Amberjacks in Australia for use as 'Kawakawa' [2] trainers, simulating 'Kates'. That never happened. Instead, the Amberjacks finished their was as land-based patrol aircraft operating from Ceylon.

___________________________

[1] The name was a continuation of the Albacore's tuna theme. Amberjack - aka Southern Kingfish - is a tuna found in the Pacific and Indian oceans (from British Columbia to South Africa, and from Australia to Japan).

[2] Kawakawa is the Japanese name for the mackerel tuna (Euthynnus affinis).

___________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 16, 2016, 11:18:32 AM
Is the Amberjack a 3-seat airplane?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 16, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
We were going to use a Japanese name for an aircraft? :icon_surprised:

I don't think so! Not even for dissimilar training purposes. Australians despised the Japanese during the war because of reported atrocities & that became even worse afterwards, when they learned of the actual scale of what had happened to PoW's. That hatred didn't start dying down until the 1970's & 80's.

The name alone could be a reason the Australians didn't let that happen.

Perhaps there would have been a better chance with a common English name, like Bluefin? ???


Nice design, though! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on June 16, 2016, 02:35:47 PM
My great uncle used to upset a few veterans for not hating the Japanese.  Some of them, who had never left Australia, would be carrying on about the atrocities etc. as an excuse for their racism into the 70s and 80s, wouldn't buy Japanese cars or electronics, some wouldn't even eat rice because it was all the prisoners of the Japanese had been fed.  Then there was uncle Albert, he didn't hate them or resent them even tough he had been captured at the fall of Singapore and spent the rest of the war in Changi.  His only regret was not being in New Guinea where he had extensive local knowledge that would have aided in the defence.  Anyway, his take on things were the Japanese were just doing what they were told and if they refused they would have been killed themselves, the really bad ones were prosecuted and punished anyway and if he hadn't have had rice to eat he would have died.  No reason to hate a whole people for things most of them would never willing have done, better to forgive and make sure there was no reason for it to happen again. 

Love the concept, looks great and could really imagine it lined up on deck next to Fulmars and Sea Hurricanes or Martlets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 18, 2016, 03:27:48 AM
The name alone could be a reason the Australians didn't let that happen.

I see your point. I was thinking less of a moniker and more of a codename. It occurs to me, belatedly, that such a codename would more likely be a short female name ... akin to Kate, Judy, etc. I guess I caught a little too caught up in tuna names  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 19, 2016, 12:48:31 AM
I don't know if there is a word for tuna in any Aboriginal dialect but, if you find any, that's the most likely name that Australians would give it. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 19, 2016, 07:57:10 AM
Some options based upon above:

Dilgara - Small King-fish
Gowdalie - Fishing spear
Kanyinuk - Kingfisher
Mirree - Kingfish
Noorigoo - Kingfisher
Perina - Kingfisher

The Kingfish variants match relative closely with Albacore or Amberjack given all are relatively sizeable fish.
The Kingfisher variants work if you want to play off the hunters of fish (i.e. ships) aspect.  The Finshing Spear also works in this regard.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2016, 01:53:53 AM
Ooo ... Mirree fits the short codename angle but I really like Gowdalie  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 28, 2016, 11:20:14 AM
Inspired - appropriately enough - by this Ideas & Inspiration post:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=147.msg2025#msg2025 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=147.msg2025#msg2025)

Vickers Valiant K.2

The Vickers Valiants were withdrawal from RAF service in Dec 1964 due to severe metal fatigue in the main wing spars. Valiant B(PR).1s were replaced by Victor B.2s converted to Victor SR.2 standard. Most critical was the retirement of the Valiant B(PR)K.1 tankers which left the RAF with no front-line in-flight refuelling aircraft.

One proposal was to convert surplus Victor B.1A bombers to B(K).1A tanker standard. But that would require the RAF to retain the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet in service for this one aircraft type. The British Aircraft Corporation counter-proposal had the advantage of employing more modern turbofans already in service with the Victor B.2 and VC10 - the Rolls-Royce Conway.

The BAC proposal was accepted and, as the Valiant B(PR)K.1s were phased out our service, they were returned to their manufacturer for extensive rebuilds. Wings were 'plucked' of control surfaces and systems to be installed in wings of an entirely new design. The main undercarriage was also reused - albeit, heavily modified so that the gear now retracted inward.

The Valiant's original 'buried' powerplant approach was abandoned in favour of four separate pylons for podded engines. This arrangement produced more drag but, even in their derated form, the new Conway turbofans produced almost twice as much power as the original Rolls-Royce Avon RA28 Mk 204 turbojets. Thus rebuilt, the first Valiant K.2 re-entered RAF service in March 1966 - serving with 90 Squadron at RAF Honington and 214 Squadron at RAF Marham.

With their new wings (employing a stronger alloy) and freed from the strains of low-level bombing flights, the Valiant K.2s would prove both durable and reliable. The Valiant K.2 performed sterling service during the Falklands War. The sturdy Valiant K.2s were finally retired in October 1993. The Valiants were replaced by 757 K.1s (ex-British Airways Boeing 757-200s converted for IFR).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on June 28, 2016, 09:09:18 PM
Nice, that just looks so right
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2016, 03:37:24 AM
Outstanding!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 30, 2016, 05:08:49 AM
Definitely a winning idea.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 30, 2016, 11:06:11 AM
Thanks folks! This one's not really a whif ... except maybe for the Austrian markings?

This is an attempt at the Saab AJ 35 Draken 35 MOD level 4 upgrade. Compared with a standard Draken, the new dog-toothed outer wings have a 1 metre more span. (here, an Apparat 15, Enhet B ECM pod is shown on the wing tip). The vertical fin is extended (à la the late JA 37 Viggens) and new, flip-out 'moustache' foreplanes are fitted.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 30, 2016, 11:57:35 AM
interesting... thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 01, 2016, 02:51:51 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 01, 2016, 06:54:20 AM
Thanks guys. This time, a full whif on the Draken ...

The Swedish AF's Draken 35 MOD level 4 upgrade was never completed. Instead, the best J 35F airframes were rebuilt as AJ 35J attack aircraft. Other 'F model Drakens were set aside for more extensive rebuilds.

The 66 J 35M Draken 2 was intended to bolster numbers of JA 37 Viggen fighters. The Draken 2s received new forward fuselages similar to that of the Viggen - including the JA 37's larger diameter Ericsson PS 46/A radar. Small, fixed foreplanes were also fitted.

The related 'AJ 38' program considered extensive modifications of surplus J 35F airframes for the strike and tactical recce roles. In contrast with the J 35M, the 'AJ 38' was to retain the standard J 37F nose (other than adopting the J 35M's canard surfaces). The rear fuselage was to be a adapted for the installation of a Turbo-Union RB199 Mk 104 turbofan engine.

Two schemes were considered for thrust reversing the RB199 engine. One approach involved scaling the arrangement used on the Viggen's Volvo RM8. A second concept simply turned the thrust reverser from the Panavia Tornado on its side. In the end, the 'AJ 38' scheme was abandoned as too complex and expensive for the structural life remaining in the J 35F airframes.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on July 02, 2016, 02:26:33 AM
Lovely  :-* It looks so natural !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 02, 2016, 02:46:02 AM
The larger canopy and windscreen on your J35M looks ideal and is certainly an improvement over the original J35 canopy/windscreen as originally built. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 03, 2016, 11:49:43 AM
Thanks folks.

Jeffry: I was originally playing with just a new canopy on the Draken. Raising the cockpit worked better ... so, I thought why not go with the Viggen radar too?

The next was prompted by discussions of turbo/no turbo for the P-47 in the Ideas and Inspiration section. I thought it would cleaner and meaner without. Now I thinking that a turboless Thunderbolt just look a bit malnourished  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 03, 2016, 03:12:01 PM
Much sleeker, though! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 03, 2016, 04:33:06 PM
Thanks for your aesthetic surgery on the ugly Mrs Thunderbolt... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 03, 2016, 05:20:24 PM
Interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on July 03, 2016, 08:25:25 PM
It is a love child between a Sea Fury and a regular Thunderbolt. Hmmm ......
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 04, 2016, 05:41:00 AM
Thanks folks!

It is a love child between a Sea Fury and a regular Thunderbolt. Hmmm ......

TBG: It took me a couple of steps to arrive at the same conclusion. At first, I was puzzled as to why it looked like an anemic Tempest Mk.II. My second thought was that it needed the full Fury treatment.

So, a new, shorter fuselage was devised which repositions the cockpit and eliminates the wing centre-section. Instead of bolting to the fuselage side, the wing panels now join on the centreline.

The inboard machine guns are removed (they wouldn't clear the prop anymore), reducing fixed armament to six .50-cals. Obviously, the centreline rack is also eliminated. The upsides would be in the weight loss - the GE turbo-supercharger and its ducting is dumped, plus the fuselage structure is reduced. As well as being lighter, the resulting 'Mini-Bolt' would also be more manoeuvrable at low altitude.

(BTW: I forgot to mention that I based my original turboless Tbolt on a mélange of Gaetan Marie's P-47B and P-47C profiles.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 04, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Thunderchild? ???


Put a hook on her & you get Seabolt ... ::)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 04, 2016, 02:01:01 PM
Looks wrong because it no longer looks like member of it's Seversky/Republic P-35/P-41/P-43 design lineage, the T-Bolt wasn't thick because of the Turbo, it got the Turbo for the same reason it's P-43 predecessor got the Turbo - fuselage volume inherent to the
basic Kartveli design.
Also remember the deep belly under the wing of the P-47D was a fairing to cover the belly tank plumbing and attachments that was added during C production.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 04, 2016, 02:49:04 PM
I seem to remember someone modelling one like this a while back...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 04, 2016, 11:11:47 PM
Looks wrong because it no longer looks like member of it's Seversky/Republic P-35/P-41/P-43 design lineage, the T-Bolt wasn't thick because of the Turbo, it got the Turbo for the same reason it's P-43 predecessor got the Turbo - fuselage volume inherent to the
basic Kartveli design.
Also remember the deep belly under the wing of the P-47D was a fairing to cover the belly tank plumbing and attachments that was added during C production.
I disagree: it looks right because dreamers don't care much of such practical details... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 12, 2016, 08:10:45 AM
Thanks for the feedback folks!

Jon: I see where you're coming from with the P-43 but I'm not sure that I agree on all Kartvelli designs. In general outline, Jackie Cochrane's Seversky AP-7A isn't so different from the Sea Fury-ized T'bolt.

I'm not sure about the P-43/P-44 but, it seems to me that the depth of the P-47 belly layout was also partly determined by the placement of twin oil coolers flanking the huge air intake. Perhaps move those coolers to the wings à la the Sea Fury?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 12, 2016, 10:51:42 AM
Kartvelli could definitely design them very slim and sleek, too—when it called for it.

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7461/15518215524_1e1c816b84_b.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on July 12, 2016, 06:05:55 PM
Always loved the look of the early Republic jets, I know there were hotter ships out there at the time but they just had a clean classic look to them.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 12, 2016, 11:22:03 PM
Your thinned P-47 with open canopy makes me think of something: we could still improve the T'bolt beauty by a rear canopy (à la YP-37): close the canopy sliding the windscreen backwards (instead of the canopy forward), and it is done!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/Tophe2712/p-47-sf2_zpsbfywrmla.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: tahsin on July 27, 2016, 07:22:57 PM
I seem to remember someone modelling one like this a while back...


Howling Mouse(?) is not a member here? Finished product on this page.

http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,18835.255.html (http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,18835.255.html)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 28, 2016, 03:46:08 AM
That's the one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 28, 2016, 04:24:13 AM
I seem to remember someone modelling one like this a while back...
Howling Mouse(?) is not a member here? Finished product on this page.

[url]http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,18835.255.html[/url] ([url]http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,18835.255.html[/url])


He is a member here on this forum as John Howling Mouse 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 28, 2016, 09:31:45 AM
In true JHM fashion, the Noisy Rodent's approach was a full transverse section of the fuselages!  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 05:56:49 AM
Carlos' musings on automotive whifs prompts me to resuscitate my failed attempt for the Non-Military GB. I had planned to do a whole series of scenarios aimed at 'Saving Studebaker' (and its Packard parent company). Those various Studebaker-Packard scenarios got waaay too long-winded and over-involved and I bailed on the GB.

So, here, I'm just going to give a potted scenario and post the images ...

First up is Go-Big-or-Go-Home scenario for Packard circa 1954. In the RW, Packard had fallen behind when rival Cadillac introduced an iron-block 331 cid V-8 in 1949. In this scenario, instead of proceeding with a copy-cat iron-block V-8, Studebaker-Packard President Jim Nance realized that playing catch-up was a losing proposition. Packard needed to distinguish itself if it was to survive.

The order went out to resume earlier work a new aluminum-block V-12. This engine drew heavily on Packard's wartime experience building the V-1690 Merlin aero-engine. The result was the 1955 Packard Clipper V-12. Due to its aluminum block construction, the Clipper V-12 was lighter than many contemporary American iron-block V-8s despite having larger dimensions. The initial 404 cid Clipper V-12 using the same pistons as the planned for the iron-block 320 cid V-8 but now running in steel sleeve inserts. This engine would go into Packard's new prestige personal-luxury car, the 1955 Paragon V-12.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 05:59:24 AM

While Packard engineers prepared the Clipper V-12, work was also underway on a V-8 derivative. The aluminum-block Clipper V-8 shared many parts with its V-12 stablemate - including its 'square' 3.5-inch bore and stroke. The intital-production Clipper V-8 displaced 269 cid. This was a substantially smaller displacement than Cadillac' iron V-8 but the aluminum-block Clipper V-8 was also substantially lighter. As with the V-12s, bore was increased to 3.75-inches in 1957, increasing displacement to 309 cid.

The aluminum-block Clipper V-8 first went into the Packard Panther (based directly on the 1954 showcar) and its convertible equivalent, the Packard Pacific. In effect, these cars were the V-8 family sedan versions of the Paragon V-12.

The Clipper V-8 was also installed in the Studebaker 'Lowboys', including their Packard version. Displayed as the PowerHawk showcar in 1954, the production models were rebranded as the Packard Paladin. A new, streamlined nose was introduced along with, on the Paladin hardtop, a new Thunderbird-style roofline. The Paladin came standard with Packard's Ultramatic transmission and the sports model featured a hood scoop for its '6-Pack' carburetors.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 06:02:09 AM

In this scenario, the Studebaker line-up is curtailled to the new Raymond Loewy-designed 'Lowboy' series. For the RW 1953 Studebaker 'Lowboy', chief designer Raymond Loewy had envisioned sedan, hardtop, and convertible models. But Studebaker built only one 1953 Commander Convertible prototype. Initially, Harold Vance was only interested in producing the sedan. Coupes were also produced only at Loewy's insistance.

This whif has the convertible model produced but the 'Lowboys' also take styling cues from the Maserti 300S  - as did the Packard Paladin (above). Naming was also rationalized -- with a Silver Hawk sedan, Starlight coupe, and Stylar convertible. A short-wheelbase convertible was also introduced as the Studebaker Sunburst.

All of the 'Lowboys' were powered by an aluminum-block Packard '270' 269 cid V-8 or a Continental 226 cid (3.7L) Red Seal 6-cylinder with a 2-barrel carburetor (Studebaker's flathead 170 cid/2.8 L 'Champion Six' having been abandoned). Sports models had Packard-style twin 4-barrel carbs on V-8s or triple 1-bbls on the 'Super 6'. The Packard Paladin lineup was closely related to the Studebaker Silver Hawk.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 06:02:55 AM

In this scenario, I expanded Studebaker's overseas assembly. Shown here are two 'Lowboy' variants adapted to export markets - the Studebaker Scout Utility assembled in Australia and the Studebaker Serval GT sedan delivery assembled in South Africa.

For the record, Real World assembly of Studebakers outside of the US and Canada consisted of: Australia (CCM); Belgium (D'Ieteren); Chile (Studebaker-Bolocco SA); Israel (Kaiser-Ilin); Mexico (Studebaker de México, SA); New Zealand (Standard, and later Motor Holdings); and South Africa (SAMAD).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 06:03:56 AM

This unrelated scenario is slightly later. In the RW timeline, Brooks Stevens 'refreshes' Raymond Loewy's 1953 hardtop design as the Gran Turismo Hawk in 1961. But here, Stevens works with a slightly longer (and heavier gauge) frame. The result is the Studebaker Sceptre family car available as a four- or-two door sedan.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 06:05:18 AM

In this scenario, the Studebaker Avanti is introduced sooner and is intended as a more direct rival to the Chevrolet Corvette. The original Raymond Loewy Avanti concept is reworked by Brooks Stevens. A longer, more streamlined nose is introduced with 'pop-up' headlights. The convertible Avanti is introduced in 1961, a hardtop Avanti followed for the 1962 model year.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2016, 06:06:47 AM

Another unrelated scenario and later still. Here, John DeLorean stays with Studebaker-Packard instead of moving to Pontiac. The result is a 'muscle car' development of the Hawk series (instead of Pontiac's GTO). In doing so, Studebaker anticipates the 'Pony Car' trend. In mid-1964, the Studebaker Stallion hardtop is rushed to market to compete with Ford's new Mustang.

The Stallion's advantage over the Falcon-based Mustang is in having a full frame. This, and a factory '6-Pack' option, wins fans in the performance world. In 1965, a convertible Stallion joins the Studebaker stable.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 17, 2016, 12:41:22 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 17, 2016, 05:06:21 PM
(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=14699)

Where's the fastback? I wanna buy one! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2016, 07:43:14 AM
Where's the fastback? I wanna buy one! :-*


Good luck Old Wombat. Only 1,198 of those mid-1965 model Stallion GTX fastback were built, making them much sought-after by collectors.

Shown here is the Stallion GTX fastback with some options included - 6-Pack carburetors/carburettors and ram-air hood-scoop, chromed sidepipe exhausts, and reverse-aerofoil rear 'spoiler' wing. Options not taken up on this car were front and rear bumperettes, twin raked AM/FM radio antennae, and wire wheel rims.

For the 1966 Stallion GTX fastback, the wire rims option was replaced by 5-spoke 'mag' wheels and the sidepipe exhausts introduced heat shields.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 18, 2016, 08:17:14 AM
Bru-um! Bru-um! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
More things with wheels... These vehicles sprang from a notion of a belatedly-recognized Azawad. In this scenario, the French attack Tuareg forces in Northern Mali (as in RW timeline). However, the Azawad government in Kidal signed a cease-fire agreement with Mali's interim government on 22 May 2014. The French then negotiated a rapprochement with Kidal in late May/early June 2014. After 08 June, French forces began cooperating with Azawad forces in combating Islamist forces north of the Niger River.

Bottom Right: An ex-Libyan BRDM-1 featuring the so-called 'Ubari mod' (after the Libyan oasis town of Ubari where the changes were made. The 'Ubari mod' was an attempt to lighten the vehicle while improving its tractability in sandy conditions.

The BRDM's ineffectual and mechanically-complex auxiliary wheel system was removed and replaced with unpowered wheels. Wheels for BRDM 'Ubari mods' were sourced from a variety of 'donors'. In this case, the wheels seem to have been taken from a Libyan Army 122 mm D-30 howitzer.

This vehicle also has mods to its upper hull to provide an open weapons bay (main armament is an ex-Libyan 106 mm M40A1 recoilless rifle). As a carrier, this BRDM was given the rather unimaginative name of í-mnas (camel). An early version of the Azawad flag has been painted on the hull. To the rear, a more official 'Azawad' (in the Tifinagh script) bumper sticker has been applied.

This 'Ubari mod' BRDM-1 was knocked out during an airstrike by French Mirage 2000a in late January 2012.

Top Left: An Azawadi 'technical' after the rapprochement with the French. This Toyoto Hilux has lost its doors and roof structure. In its place is a roll-cage salvaged from a French Panhard VPS (since the main gun is of Russian origin, that VPS was probably a disable vehicle that was stripped and then abandoned by 1er RPIMa in 2013).

This 'technical' is marked with 'Azawad' (in Tifinagh) on a fender box, an MNLA sticker further aft on the front fender, and 'Azawad' spray-bombed on to the rear fender. The Azawadi national flag is flown as a recognition devise from a handy whip antenna.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 18, 2016, 10:58:28 AM
Nice combat vehicles, mate! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 18, 2016, 12:49:56 PM
Where's the fastback? I wanna buy one! :-*


Good luck Old Wombat. Only 1,198 of those mid-1965 model Stallion GTX fastback were built, making them much sought-after by collectors.

Shown here is the Stallion GTX fastback with some options included - 6-Pack carburetors/carburettors and ram-air hood-scoop, chromed sidepipe exhausts, and reverse-aerofoil rear 'spoiler' wing. Options not taken up on this car were front and rear bumperettes, twin raked AM/FM radio antennae, and wire wheel rims.

For the 1966 Stallion GTX fastback, the wire rims option was replaced by 5-spoke 'mag' wheels and the sidepipe exhausts introduced heat shields.

The scaled Avanti rear light makes it look very Interceptor like.  FF version available. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on October 19, 2016, 08:37:50 PM
That 1966 Stallion GTX fastback...

So beautiful...

(http://www.relatably.com/m/img/meme-crying-face-cute/Okay-Crying-Meme-05.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 20, 2016, 02:24:23 AM
Ah shucks ... thanks folks.

Jon: It wasn't intentional but I'm a later-model Interceptor/FF fan (and the Jensen-Healey too).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 20, 2016, 07:52:20 AM
What? More with those bl**dy Studebakers?  :o

Top Left: In the 1964, the Scout Utility morphed into more of a mini-pickup truck. The 'Plain Jane' entry-level Scout Utility is shown here. Options taken up were the 'city' rear bumper and a fibreglass 'cap' sourced from John Savage boats (Williamstown, Vic) which also provided CCM/Studebaker with aluminium bed covers and caps.

Bottom Right: 1964 Studebaker Daytona with revised quarter panels. No backstory here, I just never liked those rear fenders. I think Brooks Stevens did an amazing job on a budget refresh ... I just can't get past those back fenders ;p
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 23, 2016, 11:49:17 AM
Treadhead GB entry: 'Short Leopards' from the leichten Panzerfamilie -- the Jagdpanzer Kanone 105mm and the Argentine VC Leopardo Patagón (aka Pampas Katze).

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2016, 02:30:31 PM
Another Treadhead GB entry with more 'Short Leopards'-- the Flakpanzer Wildkatze 27 ZLW and an upgunned C3A1 Lynx II of the Canadian Army in Germany.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.msg116807#msg116807 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.msg116807#msg116807)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 26, 2016, 01:11:03 PM

In the Armour Inspiration thread, Greg was musing on a larger turret for the Spähpanzer Luchs.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=sgpobumrq5gk57aj1nusos5il5&topic=939.msg116708#msg116708 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=sgpobumrq5gk57aj1nusos5il5&topic=939.msg116708#msg116708)

Fitting a big gun onto the Luchs would be difficult ... the turret ring being small and upper hull space being limited. That got me wondering about an RWS instead.

So, here is the SPz 2 Luchs B1 - a revamped Luchs with Rheinmetall Lance RC turret. To give the turret room, I still had to move the engine aft. That, in turn, displaced the Luchs' rear driver position.

Removing the rear driver got me thinking about a more compact Spähpanzer ... and out popped a 6x6 SPz 2 with a reduced crew (no rear driver) -  the Spähpanzer Luchs Kurz.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 26, 2016, 02:19:23 PM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 30, 2016, 08:23:00 AM

Another 'Short Leopard' installment over at the Treadhead GB

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.msg117054#msg117054 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6771.msg117054#msg117054)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 15, 2016, 08:21:57 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6718.msg118966#msg118966 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6718.msg118966#msg118966)

taiidantomcat was musing about AAV whifs ... which got the wheels turning.

One thought was using the AAV-7 track system for a distinct USMC IFV series. I've used the ASCOD Pizarro (although, for a corporate POV, the CV90 might have been more plausible?).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 15, 2016, 12:49:04 PM
Another AAV-7 variant whif. This one keeps things inside BAE Systems by mounting the 155mm/52-calibre gun and of turret of BAE Systems Land Systems' AS-90 Braveheart SP on a re-arranged (and lengthened) AAV hull.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 15, 2016, 11:18:35 PM
Interesting! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 16, 2016, 12:37:22 PM
Another whack at the AAV ... this time on wheels (from the Iveco Centauro to keep it in the BAE family).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 16, 2016, 02:31:21 PM
Looks like it belongs in the next Karl Urban Judge Dredd flick.  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 17, 2016, 02:34:27 AM
Another whack at the AAV ... this time on wheels (from the Iveco Centauro to keep it in the BAE family).

I like! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 19, 2016, 12:30:22 PM
I decided that I had to have a whack at improving this: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4298.msg118932#msg118932 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=4298.msg118932#msg118932)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on December 19, 2016, 07:51:28 PM
Excellent,It looks so much better !!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 20, 2016, 03:27:29 AM
I dub thee "Moon mobile" ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: taiidantomcat on December 23, 2016, 12:20:07 AM
That's pretty cool!! Hips seem to be adaptable to anything! Would be cool to see one in a v-22 osprey configuration? After we get the submarine version first of course lol
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 02, 2017, 05:12:15 AM
A while back, somebody mentioned sloped armour on the Cromwell. Here's my go at that concept ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on January 03, 2017, 01:35:22 AM
Nice!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2017, 04:24:30 AM
Thanks Moritz. I was trying to give a little more shape to the turret. For the hull, I figured that T-34 features were appropriate to a Cromwell upgrade  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 11, 2017, 03:00:32 AM

The Be.650 was to be a lead-in trainer for the Czechoslovak Air Force's coming Avia B.135 fighter. The Be.650 was of typical Beneš-Mráz wooden construction with power provided by a 535 hp Walter Sagitta I-SR air-cooled inverted V-12 engine. For armaments training, a single 7,92 mm vz.30 machine gun mounted under the starboard cowling would be sychronized to fire through the propeller arc.

Construction of the first Be.650 (oč 1) began in August 1938 at the Beneš-Mráz plant at Choceň. The main undercarriage was to be trousered but, while under construction, spatted wheel-coverings (akin to those on the Avia B.35 prototype) were adopted. This prototype work coincided with the 30 Sept 1938 'Mníchovská zrada' ('Munich Betrayal') which prompted entrepreneur Jaroslav Mráz to look for alternative factory locations in Slovakia. The prototype Be.650 was rolled out at Choceň in early 1939 and immediately flown to a new site at Nitra, Slovakia.

(Top) First prototype Be.650 in April 1939. Note Beneš-Mráz logo on vertical tail and Slovak flag (now covering former Czechoslovak colours) on rudder.

Meanwhile, the second prototype Be.650 (oč 2), with fully-retractable main undercarriage) was being built by ČKD-Praga under a co-construction deal. Work on oč 2 was halted by the 15 March 1939 German occupation of the Czech portion of the country. Ultimately, Be.650 oč 2 was completed and delivered to German authorities in Bohemia-Moravia. It was then sent to Rechlin for testing by the Luftwaffe.

(Bottom) Second prototype Be.650 completed by ČKD-Praga/BMM on arrival at Rechlin, Aug 1940. Note cowling markings - Beneš-Mráz logo is retained along with the script for J. Walter a Spol.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PantherG on January 11, 2017, 03:47:14 AM
Amazing "Beta" ..... Simply amazing  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 11, 2017, 12:20:44 PM
Cheers! I was thinking that it should be a 'Gamma'  :D
_________________________________

In the aftermath of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, the Nitra facility was renamed Ing. J. Mráz, továrna na letadla. Construction of the third prototype Be.650 (oč 3) by ČKD-Praga had been halted. The Czechoslovak Air Force had previously stated a preference for the retractable undercarriage variant. But that potential customer had just winked out of existence and now there were concerns about future supplies of powerplants. The latter concern proved justified as J. Walter a Spol of Prague was ordered by the German occupation authorities to switch to the production of Argus engines.

ČKD-Praga (now renamed Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG) was instructed to rework the abandoned oč 3 fuselage as an installation mock-up for a German Argus As 410 inverted V-12 engine. Conversion work proved fairly simple and the mock-up was inspected by the Technische Amt des RLM on behalf of the Luftwaffe. It was concluded that, with suitable modifications, an Argus-engined Be.650 derivative could make a suitable trainer for the Luftwaffe's in-service Messerschmitt Bf 109 fighters.

(Top) Unfinished Be.650 oč 3 fuselage employed as BMM's Argus As 410 engine mock-up.

Work had also continued at Nitra in Slovakia. The Ing. J. Mráz, továrna na letadla had gathered parts from former Beneš-Mráz suppliers now in Bohemia-Moravia with the assistance of the Deutsche Luftwaffenmission in der Slowakei. Sufficient material was found to complete a pre-production batch of 12 aircraft to be delivered to the newly-formed Slovenské Vzdusné Zbrane (SVZ, Slovak Air Arm).

(Bottom) Slovak pre-production Be.651 (marked as oč 4) at the SVZ test centre at Košice.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 12, 2017, 01:16:33 AM
Unusual subject and nice profiles, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 12, 2017, 01:18:52 PM

The first Be.651 was modified as a light attack aircraft and all remaining pre-production aircraft were completed to that standard under the designation Be.655. The SVZ Be.655s were fitted with an under-fuselage ETC 250 bomb rack of German origin. Fixed armament was increased to two nose-mounted 7,92 mm letecky kulomet vz.30. The first five Be.655s were powered by the Walter Sagitta I-SR engine. The remaining Be.655 airframes were fitted with similar Isotta-Fraschini Gamma powerplants imported from Italy.

The Be.655s served in the attack role, deploying with 13.Letka, Stihacia perut' II to the Ukraine in October 1941. The aircraft performed well but the 100 kg bomb load was considered inadequate. Front line Be.655s were replaced by modified Avia B.534s and the Be.655s relegated to the Letecká skola (Air School) where they acted as lead-in trainers for SVZ Bf 109s.

(Top) SVZ Be.655 of 13.Letka, Stihacia perut' II, late Oct 1941. Note loaded ETC 250 bomb rack and field repairs to battle damage from ground fire.

Development also continued in Bohemia-Moravia. The Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik AG was ordered to create a suitable fighter-trainer for the Luftwaffe under the designation BM 221. This aircraft was essentially a productionized Be.650 (oc 3) powered by an Argus As 410 engine. The prototype airframe was provided by the Ing. J. Mráz, Flugzeugfabrik but production was undertaken at BMM's facility outside of Prague.

Standard armament for the BM 221 was a single MG 17 machine gun but design work was also undertaken to fit the aircraft with underwing podded MG FF cannons or a single belly-mounted bomb rack. Deliveries began in early 1942 and the BM 221 met all German requirements. However, the Luftwaffe syllabus shifted away from single-seat fighter-trainers in favour of 2-seat fighter conversions like the Bf 109G-12. In early 1944, surviving Luftwaffe BM 221s were transferred either to the SVZ's Letecká skola or to the Finnish Ilmavoimat.

(Bottom) BM 221 advanced trainer of FFS A/B 121 formed at Prag-Gbell (Praha-Kbely) in 1942 after FFS A/B 4 had relocated to Wien-Schwechat. This Flugzeugführerschule was the only Luftwaffe unit to operated the BM 221.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 13, 2017, 11:47:25 AM
Slovenské stíhacie lietadlo - A Slovak Fighter

In the winter of 1943-1944, the Ing. J. Mráz, továrna na letadla (Ing. J. Mráz, Flugzeugfabrik) explored the possibility of evolving its Be.655 design into a full-fledged fighter aircraft. Design work pursued by Rublic Zdenek and Jarl Tomasov resulted in a full-size mock-up for inspection. The response from the SVZ was positive but the Deutsche Luftwaffenmission in der Slowakei was concerned that work on a fighter might interfere with production by the Mráz Flugzeugfabrik of Fieseler Fi 156 and DFS Kranich for the Germans.

The design - which became known as the Mráz Ru.750 - retained little of the Be.655 other than its basic wing structure and general construction techniques. For the Ru.750 mock-up, a Be.655 wing was mated to a new fuselage. The wings were modified to accept a Bf 109's main undercarriage. The mock-up engine - from a wrecked SVZ Bf 109E-4 - was a DB 601A-1 but the higher-powered DB 605A was proposed for production Ru.750 fighters.

Despite a promising design, whose largely wooden construction would save on strategic materials, German occupation authorities would not approve the continued development of this Slovak fighter design. Instead, the Mráz Flugzeugfabrik was ordered to focus on cooperation with the Böhmisch-Mährische Maschinenfabrik on the production of Focke-Wulf Fw 58 trainers.

(Top) Mráz Ru.750 mock-up fitted with a damaged DB 601A-1 salvaged from a SVZ Bf 109E-4.

Blooding the BM 221 - The Be.660 in the Slovenské povstalecké letectvo

The closest that the Mráz fighter-trainer ever got to aerial combat was during the 1944 Slovak National Uprising. A number of ex-Luftwaffe BM 221s were operated by the SVZ's Letecká skola as Be.660s. Several of these aircraft were transferred to operational air fields in advance of the rising.

One Be.660 (BM 221 #227) safely fled Spišská Nová Ves airfield as it was being overrun by German troops. However, this trainer was shot down in error by a Lavochkin La-5FN of the 1st Czechoslovak Fighter Air Regiment operating as it approached sanctuary at Tri Duby airfield. The pilot, Desiatnik Minárik, was killed in the resulting crash.

(Bottom) Des. Minárik's Be.660 has its SVZ markings overpainted and SPL (Slovak Insurgent Air Force) roundels applied. The slogan 'Slovenský Sloboda!' ('Slovak Freedom!') has been daubed over the former SVZ fuselage cross.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on January 13, 2017, 06:25:00 PM
Excellent !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2017, 07:05:50 AM
Cheers Alex!

Mráz in Post-War Czechoslovakia

In the immediate post-WW2 period, Mráz was focused on aircraft repair and parts reclamation work. The first original post-war design was the Mráz Ru-800 Trenér of late 1945. This was a 2-seat tandem basic trainer intended to satisfy a Československé vojenské letectvo (Czechoslovak Air Force) requirement. Like the competing Zlín Z-26 and Praga E-112, the prototype Ru-800 was powered by a 104 hp Walter Minor 4-III inline engine.

The Mráz Ru-800 lost that competition to the superior Zlín Z-26. But, in March 1948, Mráz took a chance on the potential pro-Russian leanings of the new Communist government in Prague. The prototype Ru-800 was taken from storage and re-engined with a 125 hp Shvetsov M-11 5-cylinder radial. The Ru-800 was also fitted with a new, fully-blown sliding canopy.

As expected, the more powerful Soviet engine improved performance but, contrary to Mráz expectations, the new government continued to favour domestic engine designs over Soviet powerplants. The Ru-800 was used by Mráz as a company hack until early 1950 were the prototype was heavy damaged when nosing over on soft ground.

(Top) Rebuilt Mráz Ru-800 with sliding canopy and Shvetsov M-11D radial, summer 1948

'Air Police' - Last Hurrah for the Mráz BM 221/Be.660

Although the last two Be.655s were destroyed at Tri Duby, a number of Argus-powered BM 221/Be.660 survived the Second World War. Refurbished by Moravan Zlínavion, twelve aircraft were assigned to the paramilitary Bezpecnost (Security) service of the federal police force. [1]

A new CzAF Aircraft Designation class - Hlídkový letoun (Patrol aircraft) - was considered for the Mráz Be.660. But, despite being operated in a border patrol capacity, the Be.660 was given the 'C' (Cvicna) for trainer designation - C 12. The Mráz C 12 served from late 1945 until early 1954.

(Bottom) Mráz C 12 in standard 1948 Bezpecnostni letectvo (Security aviation) markings - 'sfericky trojuhelnik' roundel on the tail, red nose (decorated here with police badge and 'POLICIE'), and distinctive 'OK-BYx' registration style.

____________________

[1] The refurbished Be.660s were considered compensation for 12 Benes-Mráz Be-51B Beta-Minors ordered by the 'Air Police' in the late '30s, but still undelivered at the time of the German occupation.

____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on January 17, 2017, 04:34:43 PM
:)
Title: Merlin Skua
Post by: apophenia on January 20, 2017, 09:35:57 AM

A notion that I keep returning to is an engine-swap between the Blackburn Skua and the Fairey Battle. The idea is to increase the Skua's potential - and survivability - as a divebomber (for both the FAA and the RAF) with the Rolls-Royce powerplant while phasing out the less-than-useful Battle. [1]

In the current concept, the 'Merlin Skua' has the Merlin III. With its Hurricane-like installation, a new fuel tank is mounted in the forward upper fuselage. The Skua's drum-shaped lower fuselage fuel tank would be become another flotation chamber (FAA aircraft) or long-range fuel tank (RAF divebombers).

The resulting aircraft is rather long-nosed ... but so too was the Skua with a Perseus. Other than that, any thoughts or critiques?

_________________________

[1] Battles with 890 hp Bristol Perseus XII radials would serve as crew trainers and target tugs.
_________________________
Title: Re: Merlin Skua
Post by: Tophe on January 20, 2017, 12:01:43 PM
any thoughts or critiques?
My thought is that it looks fine! Thanks! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on January 20, 2017, 12:13:06 PM
Not bad! :)

Might give it half a chance at surviving. ;)

Getting rid of the G__-Awful canopy might be the next move. ::)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on January 20, 2017, 06:17:27 PM
Blackburn Skua is not necessarily an elegant airplane but definitely is interesting...now,with Merlin engine looks more interesting.
Good job  :)

Getting rid of the G__-Awful canopy might be the next move. ::)
I argee
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 21, 2017, 04:46:47 AM
Interesting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2017, 09:56:25 AM

Thanks for the feedback, folks. Old Wombat: Were you referring to the sliding canopy or the windscreen? I always thought that the latter looked odd but, apparently, that rather upright windscreen was good at shedding rain on approach.

I was also working on a new approach to a single-seat Skua derivative ... which does have a revised windscreen (the Skua windscreen accommodated a gun sight but I wanted thicker, bullet-resistant glass as well).

Blackburn Boreas

I've names this revision the Blackburn B-34 Boreas (after Greek god of the cold north wind). The scenario here is that the single-seater Boreas eclipsed B-25 Roc turret-fighter development when the Admiralty realized that they'd need a higher-performing fighter for carrier use in the North Sea. The B-34 Boreas shared some features of their B-24 Skua shipmates but were smaller overall.

In late 1937, the Air Ministry switched an earlier order for 136 Rocs for a similar number of Boreas. These fighters were built by Boulton Paul at Wolverhampton. The first Boreas Mk.I entered service with 803 Naval Air Squadron in Oct 1939, with deliveries to 800 NAS beginning in early Dec 1939. Performance was not as good as anticipated once operational equipment had been added.

At Boulton Paul's instigation, design work began on a Merlin-powered Boreas. The prototype Boreas Mk.II flew in Aug 1938. Trial results were good and production of the Perseus XII-powered Mk.I was phased out after 76 were completed. Deliveries of 'Merlin Boreas' began in March 1940, replacing the Sea Gladiators of 802 NAS aboard HMS Glorious. The Boreas Mk.II fought with distinction in Norway until Glorious was sunk.

___________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 22, 2017, 01:39:37 PM
Good! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on January 22, 2017, 03:03:07 PM
Thanks for the feedback, folks. Old Wombat: Were you referring to the sliding canopy or the windscreen? I always thought that the latter looked odd but, apparently, that rather upright windscreen was good at shedding rain on approach.

I was also working on a new approach to a single-seat Skua derivative ... which does have a revised windscreen (the Skua windscreen accommodated a gun sight but I wanted thicker, bullet-resistant glass as well).

The whole lot! Ugly! :-X
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 23, 2017, 03:12:48 AM
The whole lot! Ugly! :-X


Old Wombat: Interesting ... beauty is in the eye. I've always rather liked the Skua's glazing.  :icon_crap:

Some may have noticed that my Blackburn Boreas was somewhat out of scale. That was intentional and based on the proportions of the FROG Blackburn Skua that I built as a kid.

Swanny's Models discussion group member razordws from Vernon, BC, began tackling the Revell (ex-FROG) Skua (#04100) a few years back. His build seems to have stalled but razordws' observations were interesting. The Revell kit has some seriously underscale parts -- primarily the wings being too narrow in chord, horizontal tailplane underscale generally. Perfect, I thought, for a single-seat fighter relative of the Skua and Roc  :))

http://www.swannysmodels.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1260854104/8 (http://www.swannysmodels.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1260854104/8)

Below is a planview of an out-of-the-box build of the FROG kit (by TobyC on UAMF) where the narrow chord and small horizontal tail are quite evident. For a comparison with the Valka.cz sideview image that I based the Boreas profile on, see: http://www.valka.cz/html_images/ICE/Skua_2/01.jpg?utm_source=valka_cz&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=linkthru  (http://www.valka.cz/html_images/ICE/Skua_2/01.jpg?utm_source=valka_cz&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=linkthru)

I left the kit 'flaws' as is but changed the centre fuselage to create the single-seater -- shortening the nose, and moving the pilot's position aft. As mentioned before, a 'slopier' windscreen accommodates armour glass and the rear turtledeck from a Sea Gladiator was incorporated (with glazed area extended on the Boreas Mk.II). I also shaved off the Skua's distinctive ventral fin (with the shorter nose, I thought that this extra fin area would no longer be needed).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 23, 2017, 11:17:50 AM

Merlin C powered design to spec A.39/34.
Span: 44'
Length: 30' 4.5"
Height: 10' 6"
(labeled as 'dive bomber' on drawing and as 'turret fighter' in text of Putnam Blackburn volume.)
(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/BTS/ROC_MERLIN_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 24, 2017, 10:58:28 AM
Merlin C powered design to spec A.39/34...

Jon: Great stuff on the Blackburn divebomber/turret fighter! I've done a rough comparison of the A.39/34 submission and the B-25 Roc. Quite a few changes along the way!

Wingspan: Roc 46' ; A.39/34 44'
Length: Roc 35' 7"; A.39/34 30' 4.5"
Height: Roc 12' 1'; A.39/34 10' 6"

The project to A.39/34 appears to have twin wing guns outboard of the main undercarriage. But there's no sign of any engine exhausts or radiators. The latter should be in evidence for the glycol-cooled Merlin C (although the first few P.V.-12s had water/steam cooling systems). Maybe the Blackburn project was originally planned for the evaporative-cooled R-R Goshawk engine?

The Air Min spec is also a little confusing. A.39/34 was for a 2-seat Army co-operation type to replace the Hawker Audax and Hector biplanes (ultimately satisfied by the Westland Lysander). So why did Blackburn submit a turret-fighter and/or divebomber for A.39/34? My guess is that Blackburn was hoping to pick up additional contracts to replace the RAF's Hawker Hind and Demon as well.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 25, 2017, 02:23:13 AM
Any chance we will see a floatplane version of your new creations?

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Duggy009/Blackburn-Roc-Floatplane.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 25, 2017, 02:23:48 AM
I would also love to see a version of the Skua adopted by the British Army.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 27, 2017, 04:12:41 AM
Any chance we will see a floatplane version of your new creations?

Well, sorta ...

Merlin-Skua Floatplane

When the 1940 Norwegian campaign began, the Air Ministry became very interested in float-equipped combat aircraft. As such, Blackburn undertook to fit its Merlin-Skua with the twin float set from their Shark biplane torpedo bomber.

Taxi trails with the Merlin-Skua on floats immediately showed that the radiator scoop would fill with sea water with the slightest porpoising. This was remedied with the substitution of a more forward-placed radiator (taken directly from a Wellington Mk.II bomber). The floatplane's behaviour on the water was rather erratic while airborne performance had become mediocre.

After the fall of Norway, the Merlin-Skua on floats concept was shelved.

Blackburn Boreas Float-Fighter Concept

AM Spec N.2/42 called for a retractable-hull flying-boat fighter. Blackburn made two submissions to this specification. The more advanced concept resulted in the Napier Sabre-powered Blackburn B-44 based on the planned Firebrand shipboard fighter. The less ambitious proposal was the Blackburn B-36F 'Pacific Fighter' development of the Merlin-powered Boreas series.

The 'Pacific Fighter' was to feature a shallower fuselage and wings adapted for Blackburn B-20 style retractable wingtip stabilizer floats. At a early stage, it was realized that an enlarged tailplane would also be required. Ultimately, the Merlin was to be replaced by the more powerful Rolls-Royce Griffon engine.

The Air Ministry reviewed both Blackburn proposals and elected to pursue the more advanced B-44. In light of the host of problems encountered by the base B-37 Firebrand aircraft, this would seem to have been the wrong decision.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 27, 2017, 04:21:51 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 27, 2017, 02:00:02 PM
a retractable-hull flying-boat fighter.
So uneasy to draw... but you succeeded, congratulations! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on January 27, 2017, 06:34:55 PM
I haven't checked in here for a while, you've made some nice additions.

I quite like the Mraz designs you've cooked up in the last couple of pages. In reality, stuff that came from Benes-Mraz, Mraz and later Orlican was all pretty interesting and had some good "What if" potential.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on January 27, 2017, 09:15:38 PM
long live seaplanes !
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 28, 2017, 02:47:47 PM
Thanks again Apophenia, you made me dream of similar Mustangs with retractable float, enriching my collection... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 28, 2017, 03:06:38 PM
Sorry Apophenia, I mistyped your name. It is corrected at http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/P-51TR9_adp.jpg (http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/P-51TR9_adp.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 30, 2017, 01:24:10 PM
Whatabout another one with twin retractable floats, Ursinus style ;D
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/OS/OS-1/29-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: tankmodeler on January 31, 2017, 11:03:00 PM
Any chance we will see a floatplane version of your new creations?
Because a regular Roc isn't, quite, ugly enough, we need to put floats on it...    ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 01, 2017, 03:14:10 AM
Tophe: I do like your Blackburn B-51D ... IMHO, the Firebrand tail really suits the Mustang!

Jon: Interesting that you mention twin retractable floats. I did briefly consider pinching and backdating the modern Tigerfish approach ;)
http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/page3.html (http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/page3.html)

tankmodeler:  That old "if it looks right, it is right" adage has long-since been turned on its head. It's funny though how, with hindsight, successful concepts (both airframe designs and roles) 'look right' while duds 'look wrong'  :D

Both turret-fighters and float-fighters fit pretty firmly into the dud category as concepts. Yet, to my eyes anyway, the Defiant and Rufe looks 'right' while the Roc and 'Wildcatfish' look 'wrong'. Go figure ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 01, 2017, 03:18:49 AM
For the next whif, I have the Bell Model-3 winning the US Army Air Corps' 1937 specification X-609. So, the rear-cockpit Model-3 becomes the P-39 Airacobra instead of the mid-cockpit Model-4/Model-12.
________________________

The prototype XP-39 (Bell Model-3) flew in April 1939 powered by a 1,150 hp Allison V-1710-7. In May, an order was placed for ten V-1710-17-powered pre-production Y1P-39s. The latter (Bell Model-3A) were changed in detail compared with the XP-39. Most obvious was the installation of armament -- twin, synchronized .50 calibre Browning machine guns and a 25mm cannon firing through a 'hollow' propeller shaft. In addition, the main undercarriage covers were simplified as was the 'plumbing' for the General Electric turbosupercharger.

The belly-mounted GE B-10 'blower' installation proved quite 'draggy' and general aerodynamic improvement were undertaken. This aerodynamic clean-up saw a pointed propeller spinner retro-fitted to the fifth Y1P-39. Plans were also in hand to relocate the B-10 'blower' to a new, portside fuselage position. That was never done as the Air Corps had decided to cancel the turbo P-39A (Bell Model-3B) in favour of the simpler, supercharged P-39B.

(Top) Y1P-39 Airacobra of the Headquarters Staff flight, 31st Pursuit Group, March-April 1940. This pre-production aircraft displays the 31st PG badge ("Return with Honor") in front of the cockpit and features HQ flight stripes on the forward nose. Note that this Y1P-39 has yet to be fitted with its reflector gun sight.

The P-39B (Bell Model-3C) could be quickly distinguished from the Y1P-39 by its larger tail fin and rudder. Less obvious was the longer main undercarriage legs with smaller, lighter main wheels. The production P-39B Airacobras began arriving to equip the 31st Pursuit Group at Selfridge Field in November 1940. The P-39B did everything expected of it but, lacking armour and self-sealing fuel tanks, the Airacobra was clearly unsuited to modern air combat. Orders were cut from 80 to only 62 P-39Bs.

Further design work on the P-39C (Bell Model-3D) -- which was to add a pair of .30-calibre Brownings to the nose armament -- was abandoned. Instead, the Air Corps decided to adopt Bell's more conventional Model-15 'Export Fighter' as its next service type. But that is another story ...

(Bottom) P-39C Airacobra of the 40th Pursuit Squadron (Interceptor), 31st PG, in 'White Army' markings for the Louisiana Maneuvers, Aug-Sept 1941). White crosses are temporary, water-based paint. The 40th PS badge is painted forward of the cockpit. Note that rudder stripes have now been removed from USAAC combat aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 01, 2017, 06:39:34 AM
Waaaaw...P-39 C is the most interesting what if seen lately...absolutely awesome !
This model should be plastified !!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 01, 2017, 07:37:41 PM
I agree: very wonderful reinvented P-39... Thanks for the enjoyment... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 01, 2017, 08:38:45 PM
Sure is different. :)

Unfortunately the wing/cockpit location blocks forward low vision. ???

Fine for a racer, not so flash for a fighter. :icon_crap:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Rickshaw on February 01, 2017, 10:01:58 PM
Reminds me a great deal of the XP-77

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Bell_XP-77.jpg/300px-Bell_XP-77.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 02, 2017, 12:32:14 AM
Looks like that's where the canopy came from. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 02, 2017, 12:37:11 AM
Your P-39C is soooo beautiful, I MUST draw Mustang derivatives of it... thanks again!
EDIT: I join it:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 02, 2017, 02:33:32 AM
Reminds me a great deal of the XP-77

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Bell_XP-77.jpg/300px-Bell_XP-77.jpg)

My thoughts too.

It is great work. :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on February 03, 2017, 03:59:34 AM
Posted before but here they are again, drawings from Putnam on Bell by Pelletier,
for those who haven't seen them previously.

(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/MODEL3-01.jpg)

(http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww291/joncarrfarrelly/MODEL3-02.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 04, 2017, 10:59:31 AM
Looks like that's where the canopy came from. :)

Old Wombat: That was my first thought, too. The Model-3 canopy concept was recycled for the Model-32/XP-77 lightweight fighter but, I was surprised to discover, the two canopies were quite different in shape  :P

Jon: Thanks for that. Interesting that your Putnam 3-view shows a spinner and an undercarriage very much like the RW P-39. The drawing I was working from must have been of an earlier incarnation -- all of the wheels were much bigger.

________________________

Bell had planned an export version of its Model-3 Airacobra. The hybrid Bell Export Model-3 featured the lighter-weight undercarriage of the unbuilt Bell Model-3D but lacked that design's turbosupercharger. Armed with a 37mm Colt-Oldsmobile cannon, thi concept was offered to the French purchasing commission as a chasse d'assaut. Designated Model-3F, Bell proposed the name Bélier (Battering Ram). Armée de l'Air inspectors were nonplussed by the Model-3F which was privately dubbed 'Baleneau' (the 'Whale Calf').

No-one was surprised when the French declined the Model-3F but the purchasing commission saw greater potential in another as-yet unflown Bell design - the more conventional Model 14. Armée de l'Air personnel viewed the near complete Model 14 as its Allison V-1710C engine was first being installed. The Model 14 was going to be a well-protected aircraft (with armour glass in front and behind the pilot) but also an expensive one. To reduce cost and increase commonality, it was decided to substitute a French powerplant.

The first prototype Model-14 (NX-3970) flew from Buffalo Airfield at Cheektowaga in the beginning of September 1938. Overall, the aircraft was a success but there were 'bugs' to work out. The Model-14 had been designed for the Allison V-1710F but this engine, with its higher thrust-line was not available in time. Instead, the prototype was fitted with a V-1710C making taxiing tricky for test pilots. The 'cut back' carburetor intake also caused engine surging although this was easily remedied by extending the intake forward.

Unexpectly high drag caused by the twin radiator ducts was harder to fix. In the end, a completely new belly duct had to be designed. A bigger problem was Bob Woods' beautifully-shaped canopy. Designed to slide forward during take-off and landing, this canopy had a tendency jam or even to jump its track. More importantly, the forward-siding canopy was completely unacceptable to the potential customer - the Armée de l'Air.

(Top) The first prototype Bell Model-14 'Export Fighter' with its long-nose Allison V-1710C engine.

Work on the second Model 14 was delayed to incorporate improvements to the first prototype. As a result, the second prototype was not completed until April 1939. The French had organized for a Czech-built Avia HS-12Ydrs engine to be delivered to Bell but this engine had been seized by occupying German authorities. So, the second prototype had to be shipped to Marseille without an engine. The Model-14F was sent on to the Base de Stockage at Istres where the fighter was fitted with a French-built Hispano-Suiza 12Y-21.

Acceptance trials were flown by CEMA (Centre d'Expérimentation du Matériel Aérien) at Villacoublay in November 1939. By that time, a modest test armament of twin synchronized 7.5mm FN-Browning mle 1938 machine guns was installed (for no 20mm moteur-canon could be spared from operational aircraft). Overall, the Model-14F performed well but the CEMA report recommended that machine gun armament be moved to the wings to provide uncluttered access to the planned HS.404 moteur-canon and its feed drum.

(Bottom) The second prototype Bell Model-14F in French colours during Villacoublay acceptance trials with the Armée de l'Air's CEMA (Centre d'Expérimentation du Matériel Aérien).

With recommended changes incorporated, the Model-14F-1 entered production at Bell's Elmwood plant. To be continued ...

________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 04, 2017, 04:15:43 PM
Great new profiles! :-*
Google finds no CEMA test center, but on the what-if planet this is different all right. In France "AA test center" is more "centre de test de l'AA" than "AA test centre", but who knows on the what-if planet? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 05, 2017, 03:17:25 AM
Great new profiles! :-*
Google finds no CEMA test center, but on the what-if planet this is different all right. In France "AA test center" is more "centre de test de l'AA" than "AA test centre", but who knows on the what-if planet? ;)


Tophe: You are quite right about CEMA Villacoublay. The 'real' CEMA was called the Centre d'Essais des Matériels Aériens. CEMA was the predecessor to the modern Centre d'essais en vol (CEV) or Flight Test Centre at Brétigny-sur-Orge (opened in August 1945).

For anyone interested, there was also the Centre d'expertise aérienne militaire established at Reims in 1933. CEAM withdrew to North Africa after the armistice. After the Germans were driven out, CEAM relocated to Mont-de-Marsan (Base aérienne 118). In September 2015, CEAM was renamed the Centre d'expertise aérienne militaire.

http://www.landes.gouv.fr/centre-d-experiences-aeriennes-a1375.html (http://www.landes.gouv.fr/centre-d-experiences-aeriennes-a1375.html)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 07, 2017, 01:12:25 AM
Thanks for these explanations. Just yesterday, I encountered this Center code (in "Le Trait d'Union" Magazine, Jan-Feb 2017 issue), that I would not have noticed witout you, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2017, 01:57:14 AM
Thanks for that Tophe. The SFCA Lignel 10 was an interesting little bird ... too bad that its requirement was dropped. Have you ever seen a photo of the Lignel 10?

For those interested, 3-view drawings of the SFCA Lignel 10, Lignel 20, and Lignel 30 can be seen here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6554864q/f86.highres (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6554864q/f86.highres)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2017, 02:00:16 AM
The Bell 'Export Fighter' in France

(Top) A captured Bell Model-14F-2 in Luftwaffe markings. This fighter has had its French markings covered in a mix of RLM 71 Dunkelgrün and RLM 65 Hellblau paints. Yellow panels are artifacts of having been taken over briefly by the Ergänzungsstaffel (Replacement Squadron) of JG 51 at Cazaux. But the Bell fighter was quickly transferred to the Erprobungskommando 9 (Eroberte feindliche Kampfflugzeuge), a Luftwaffe unit that evaluated captured enemy aircraft.

EKdo 9 (EfK) flight testing of the Model-14F-2 at Rechlin-Roggenthin was rather perfunctory. The airframe was then disassembled to study American construction techniques. Note that 'weiß fünf' has been fitted with a German Revi gunsight and FuG 7 radio set.

(Bottom) A Bell Model-15F-1 of GC III/1 while based at Chantilly-Les Aigles in May 1940. The Allison-powered Model-15F-1 was armed with six FN-Browning mle 1938 machine guns (with two synchronized to fire through the propeller disc).

Flown by Sous/Lieutenant du Boucher, this aircraft was lost to FlaK while straffing a German column in the forest of Compiègne. Slt du Boucher was killed in the ensuing crash. Adjudant-Chef Gagnaire was also shot down on this mission but survived and managed to rejoin his squadron.
______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 08, 2017, 02:04:29 AM
Have you ever seen a photo of the Lignel 10?
Sorry, in the magazine are just photographs of the Lignel 16, 20, 30.

(Bottom) A Bell Model-15F-1 of GC III/1 while based at Chantilly-Les Aigles in May 1940. The Allison-powered Model-15F-1
Your 15F-1 is very beautiful :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 11, 2017, 04:35:56 AM

With the Fall of France, Bell Model-15Bs were diverted to the UK and brought up to British standards. The Bell Model-15F Belleau became the Bellona in RAF service. [1] Despite desperate need, the Bellona was not issued as a day fighter. Instead, the Allison's low-altitude rating restricted the Model-15s to use by Army Co-operation squadrons.

Most of the RAF Bells were Bellona Mk.I and Mk.Ia types which flew reconnaissance duties with the Army Co-operation squadrons. The AC squadrons also received a small number of Bellona Mk.IIs - an 'Anglicized' Model-15F3 'Bouleuse' - armed with twin, underwing 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannons. [2]

The first Bellonas joined Lysanders of No.26 Squadron which went to RAF Lympne upon their return from France. Understrength due to combat losses, No.26 was reinforced by Free French aircrew from No. 1 School of Army Cooperation at Old Sarum. One such pilot was Adjudant HJ Bouquillard who joined No.26 from No. 41 OTU. Flying the Bellona Mk.II, Adj. Bouquillard helped pioneer what would later become know as 'Rhubarb' missions over northern France.

(Top) Bellona Mk.II BE748 of No.26 Sqn. This aircraft was hit by FlaK while 'barge busting' in the Port of Boulogne. Henri Bouquillard was killed when his fighter came down in the outskirts of Boulogne-sur-Mer.

It was not until Spring of 1941 that Bell received its first 'short reduction-gear' Allison, the 1,150 hp V-1710-F3R. Installed in a Model-15B4 airframe, this combination was offered to the RAF as the Model-16B1. This was accepted by the British as the Bell Bellicose. Under Lend-Lease, the Model-16 had first to be taken into US service. Accordingly, the prototype was tested by the US Army Air Corp in May 1941 as the XP-45A. [3]

(Bottom) The prototype XP-45 (Model 16U) performing USAAC flight testing at Wright Field, late May 1941.

___________________________


[1] The name was taken from Bellona (aka Duellona), the Roman Goddess of War.

[2] The majority of Model-15F3 were still being built. These aircraft were completed as Bellona Mk.III photo-recce aircraft armed with only the two cowl machine guns.

[3] The Bell Model-15B2 had already been briefly evaluated by the Air Corps as the XP-45.

___________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on February 11, 2017, 09:41:09 AM
Apophenia,
I am LOVING these Bell profiles and I am really glad you have returned to World War II era aircraft profiles!  I think the Bellona Mk. II is my favoriate, but I also really like the French 15F-1.  Keep it up!!

Chuck
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 11, 2017, 10:30:58 AM
The Bellona's look neat! :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 11, 2017, 05:00:40 PM
Apophenia, I do love your Bell invented ones :-* I will probably transform them into Mustang derivatives but it is hard to choose the best one among so many marvels... :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Glanini on February 11, 2017, 06:43:01 PM
Wonderful Bells, your NMF is amazing, just love it  :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 11, 2017, 10:17:13 PM
Apophenia, I do love your Bell invented ones :-* I will probably transform them into Mustang derivatives but it is hard to choose the best one among so many marvels... :)
Here is the (beautiful) source of the Mustang 51D design, I guess: ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 13, 2017, 10:48:29 AM
Thanks folks. And very nice Tophe! The story continues ...

Bell 'Export Fighters' -- the Next Generation

The RAF began receiving the improved Bell Model-16 Bellicose in early Spring of 1942. These fighters had the Allison V-1710-F3R engine and four wing-mounted 0.5-inch Browning machine guns. This heavier armament prompted the RAF to dispatch Bellicose fighters to the Western Desert where they replaced the Curtiss Tomahawks on ground attack duties.

(Top) Bell Bellicose F.Mk.Ia (Model-16B-2) flown by P/O Clive Caldwell, 250 Sqn, Desert Air Force, April 1942

The RAF Bellicose were supplied under Lend-Lease. But some were held back for use by the US Army Air Force as P-45As (Model-16U-1) and given the name Bataan. The P-45B Bataan was built to full USAAF standards and differed primarily in US-specified equipment details. The Bataan had a good reputation but P-45 development potential suffered from a US decision to allocate Packard-built Merlin engines exclusively to Curtiss in an attempt to maximize P-40F performance.

(Bottom) Bell P-45B Bataan (Model-16U-2) flown by Major BK Holloway, 23rd FG, China, November 1942

____________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 13, 2017, 12:19:16 PM
Flying Tigers would have been sexy! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 17, 2017, 12:22:14 PM
Merlin-engined Bell Export Fighter in Britain

There were Bell fighters with Merlin engines. The first was an ex-French Model-14F Belleau which had evacuated to Britain. First used as a familiarization trainer with No. 41 OTU, the abcense of HS-12Y spares soon rendered this Belleau inoperable. It was stripped of usable airframe parts as Bellona spares during the Battle of Britain. The fuselage was then transferred to Rolls-Royce Hucknall for conversion to Merlin powerplant.

The 'Merlin-Bellona' stalled as the Civilian Repair Organisation at Hucknall detailed to do the job was overwhelmed with higher-priority Hurricane refurbishment and conversion work. Eventually, the engineless fuselage was shipped to Boulton Paul Aircraft at Wolverhampton where Blackburn Roc production was now complete.

Boulton Paul installed a Merlin X in the Model-14F fuselage using Defiant Mk.II fittings. The fuselage was then returned to Hucknall were it was fitted with spare components taken from Bellona airframes under repair. The Rolls-Royce Flight Test Establishment at Hucknall soon found that, with its new 1,260 hp powerplant, the re-engined Bell was a much better performer. However, Rolls-Royce was not in a position to supply Merlins for widespread Bellona re-engining and the USAAF was not willing to supply Packard V-1650s to Bell.

(Top) The 'Merlin-Bellona' hybrid about to be with with a Merlin 32. Note this aircraft carries no RAF serial and its tail flash colours are reversed (both to accommodate French sensibilities, perhaps). The 'Merlin-Bellona' combined Model-14F fuselage with PR Bellona wings (and canopy). The exact origin of the replacement tail surfaces was not recorded. Note that a small fin fillet has been added (indicating some directional control issues).

Merlin-engined Bell Model-16 in the US

One Bell fighter was re-engined with a Merlin in the US but not a V-1650. In the Spring of 1943, the concept of re-engining Bell fighters with Merlins was revisited by the RAF. In the revised scheme, Bell would export 'bare' Model-16 airframes to be fitted with 2-stage Merlin 61s in Britain. As a proposed Lend-Lease project, the re-engined Bell was delivered to the USAAF as the sole XP-45F 'Merlin-Bataan'.

Based on a long-fuselage P-45E airframe, the XP-45F flew well and was faster than the Allison-powered Bataans. Still, the US policy of V-1650 allocation remained and Rolls-Royce found itself incapable of producing sufficient Merlin 61s to satisfy both Spitfire IX production and Bell Model-16s.

(Bottom) XP-45F 'Merlin-Bataan' in USAAF markings while on loan back to Bell in late 1943. Although the 'Merlin-Bataan' itself was a non-starter, the airframe was used for a trial conversion using the 'bubble' canopy from the British Hawker Typhoon. The white 'X' on the rudder may be an 'experimental' marking.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 17, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Really enjoying these Bells. Please continue.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 18, 2017, 02:30:27 PM
Any chance of some post war Reno racer versions?  Maybe also some Soviet ones?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 18, 2017, 11:18:59 PM
Just getting caught up now and oh my are your Bell permutations delightful!

I can't decide which one I like best, but the RAF and USAAC NMF versions are pure eye candy!

Great stuff!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 19, 2017, 09:39:13 PM
The XP-45F is very beautiful too! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2017, 08:02:48 AM
Thanks folks!

...  Maybe also some Soviet ones?

Wait for it ...

________________________

Bell P-45 Testbeds

There were two other Bell Export Fighters with major modifications. The first was a USAAF P-45E fuselage modified to take an experimental Continental XI-1430 'Hyper' engine. A trial installation was completed but development work on Continental's inverted V-12 was abandoned. As a result, this airframe was never fully assembled.

There are two puzzles over the Continental-powered Bell. One is why a USAAF experimental designation was never applied (Bell assigned Model-25 to this airframe but there is no record of an 'XP' designation). The second is why a nose-mounted radiator was used when the XI-1430 was over 200 lbs heavier than the Allison V-1710. It's possible that Bell intended to extend the fuselage to provide a larger fuel tank.

The second major modification resulted in the Bell Model-28/XP-45L 'Super Bataan' prototype. At a glance, the XP-45L differed from a standard Bataan by its squared-off tailplane and lengthened radiator bath. A more important difference was the application of a completely new laminar-flow wing tho this modified P-45G. The XP-45L was a success but further development led to the superior Bell Model-28/P-76 Bastion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on February 20, 2017, 09:54:18 AM
Those tiny tails are giving me a bit of a Ki-44 vibe.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 20, 2017, 12:16:03 PM
Thanks for the XP-45L invention, looking so much like a Mustang :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2017, 05:42:17 PM
Those tiny tails are giving me a bit of a Ki-44 vibe.

Funny you should mention the tiny tails, Logan. Late-model P-45s received larger fins and rudders...

Bell Export Fighters in Far-Away Lands

(Top) Bell Model-16G (P-45G-5BE) of the Soviet VVS' 19th GIAP in East Karelia, 1943. 'White 4' has been newly transferred to this operational squadron from the 5th PIAP (ferry unit). Note continued use of factory-painted roundels (normally soon overpainted in Soviet service).

(Bottom) "Any Place, Any Time, Any Where." Bell P-45J-1CU of the 1st Air Commando Group flying in support of the Chindits in Burma. Like all 1ACG aircraft, 'Mrs. Virginia' was a hand-me-down ... which shows in her heavily-retouched camouflage (42 Medium Green patching over 41 OD). Note the flared exhaust pipes - a handy recognition feature for Curtiss-built Bataans.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 20, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Outstanding.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on February 20, 2017, 06:03:23 PM
Way nice fighter. :)
Thought I would heard of these already.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 20, 2017, 06:12:36 PM
Superlative!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 23, 2017, 11:19:32 AM
Bell 'Export Fighters' -- End of the Line for the Allisons

By the end of 1943, the performance of the P-45 series was seriously lagging. Only at Curtiss' Buffalo plant were Allison-powered P-45s still being produced. RAF orders were being diverted in their entirety to the Soviet Union. In most of Europe, USAAF Bataans were being replaced by superior, Merlin-powered P-51 Mustangs. Only in Italy, with the 31st Fighter Group of the 15th Air Force did the P-45 soldier on as a combat fighter.

(Top) 'Bettie' was a P-45M-3CU of the 308th Fighter Squadron flying out of San Severo (220 miles east of Rome) in Nov 1944. The diagonal red stripes were a Group marking for the 31st FG, yellow stripes under the wing and horizontal tail were Group recognition marks. By March 1945, this Bataan had been passed on to the Italian Co-Belligent Air Force.

Bell Aircraft found itself with a production problem. The P-45 line had been wound up, orders for the P-59B jet fighter had been slashed, and the prototype XP-83 jet escort fighter would not fly until Feb 1945. Thus, when Rolls-Royce resurrected the idea of re-engining the Bataan, Bell was highly motivated to run with the concept. This time, instead of the Merlin, Rolls was promoting the larger Griffon which was to be built in the US to power the proposed Hughes F-11B photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

Rolls-Royce quickly arranged to ship the powerpack from a Spitfire XII to Bell complete with Griffon IIB (RG2SM) V-12, engine-bearers, cowling, and 4-blade Rotol Jablo XH.54D-RM-55 prop, along with the block radiator from a Fairey Firefly Mk.I. These were quickly installed in a P-45N airframe for testing. The single-stage Griffon IIB was in no way representative of planned US-built Griffons but it would make Bell the first American firm with practical experience of the new engine.

(Bottom) 44-308471 was a late-production P-45N-10BE airframe adapted to the British Rolls-Royce Griffon IIB engine. Initially designated XP-45R, by the time the prototype conversion had flown, this aircraft had been redesignated XP-76. The XP-76 is shown here as first flown. The Bell Aircraft logo on the tail fin and 'Rolls-Royce Griffon' script on the starboard-side nose were both removed at Wright Field (at the time that a large dorsal fin was added to improve directional stability).
______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 23, 2017, 12:49:27 PM
 :-* Your XP-76 is a marvel, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on February 23, 2017, 03:13:45 PM
I love these Bell developments you're onto lately.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 23, 2017, 07:06:32 PM
I like very much the XP-76 version,it reminds me of Curtiss XP-40 Q...great job sir !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 24, 2017, 03:02:58 AM
Thanks kindly folks. And now for a bit of verbosity ...
_________________________________

Bell 'Export Fighters' -- Notes on American Griffons

The story of Rolls-Royce Griffons (and derivatives) used by the USAAF is a bit convoluted. So, a summary of sorts is needed ...

As already mentioned, Rolls-Royce provided a Griffon IIB (RG 2 SM) engine to Bell for its Model 38 XP-45R/XP-76 prototype conversion (or Bastion, as it came to be known). This Griffon was a single-stage engine intended to produce 1,730 hp at 750 feet. The British goal was to continue the tradition of low-level fighter provided by the Allison-powered P-45 Bataan series. The RAF also hoped for an alternative powerplant source for its Griffon-Spitfires. That never happened. Priorities were shifting and the USAAF no longer favoured low-altitude performance but it did see a medium-altitude, Griffon-powered Bell fighter as a good complement to the Army Air Force's very successful P-51D Mustangs.

In the US, the Griffon licensed-production was initiated for the Hughes F-11B photo-recce aircraft. This engine would differ from British-built Griffons primarily in its revised supercharger fitted with a down-draft Bendix-Stromberg PR-58E2 4-barrel pressure injection carburetor (as used on in-service USAAF R-2800-C radials).

The US-built Griffon was seen as a big-brother to the Packard-built V-1650 Merlin. US production was assigned to the Hudson Motor Car Company of Detroit, MI. By the time the XP-76 prototype conversion had flown, Hudson's Jefferson Avenue plant was already preparing to produce the British V-12. However, the design work on the revised supercharger was lagging and Hudson was ordered to complete early-production engines with the same supercharger design and updraft Bendix-Stromberg 9T-40/1 carb as used on Spitfire XIVs.

To power the second XP-76A prototype, Bell was provided with the first flight-worthy Hudson V-2240-1 'Invader'. The name didn't stick -- the V-2240 was invariably referred to as a 'Griffon' -- but the engine was a complete success. Meanwhile, Bell had completed a small pre-production run of P-76A Bastions which were fitted with Rolls-Royce built Griffon 61 (RG 4 SM) engines and Rotol Jablo 5-bladed propellers upon their arrival at an 8th AF Maintenance Squadron base in southern England.

All Hudson V-2240-1 engines were prototypes only. The first full-production engine was to be the Hudson V-2240-3 (with contra-rotating Aeroproducts AD6462-X4 6-blade propeller) for the Bell P-76B (Model-38) Bastion. Delays with the contra-prop were sufficient to cancelled the V-2240-3 in favour of Hudson V-2240-5 with a reduction gear suited to a conventional propeller system. The Bell P-76B was also cancelled in favour of the P-76C (Model-38C). [1]

The Bell P-76C Bastion was the first fully US-made variant. Hudson provided the V-2240-5 Griffon engine, Aeroproducts its 5-bladed A842-H1 propeller. The P-76C run was comparatively short as Hudson replaced the V-2240-5 on its line with V-2240-9 Griffons. [2] The V-2240-9 had a higher compression ratio suited to now-available 150 octane fuels. This led to the Bell P-76D which, externally, was all but indistinguishable from the 'C model Bastion.

The next model of Bastion was the Bell P-76F [4] powered by a V-2240-13 Griffon. [2] The V-2240-13 featured a down-draft Bendix-Stromberg PR-58E2 carb and Aeroproducts AD6464-H1 6-bladed contra-prop. Few of these 'AD' engines had been delivered before the end of the war. [3]

Also in the works at war's end was the fuel-injected Hudson V-2240-11 for the Curtiss-built P-76G. Several of these engines were completed but, in September 1946, all orders for the P-76G were cancelled outright. Bell assembled its V-2240-11 powered XP-76K as a prototype for the P-76G but the results of flight-testing were moot. The war was over and, with it, the era of the piston-powered fighter.

_________________________________

[1] There was no 'Model-38A' or 'Model-38B'. Bell had simply rationalized its Model sub-type letters to match USAAF designations.

[2] The V-2240-7 was the priority down-draft carb Griffon variant intended for the Hughes XF-11B.

[3] 'AD' signified 'Aeroproducts Dual rotation' (ie: contra-rotating) in this designation system.

[4] The unbuilt Curtiss-built P-76E was to have been akin to the P-76D but fitted with a 5-bladed Hamilton-Standard 'paddle prop' which never emerged. Curtiss' P-76E orders were transferred to P-76Gs.
_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 24, 2017, 01:26:54 PM
:-* Your XP-76 is a marvel, thanks!
I cannot resist the temptation to present the (beautiful) Mustang derivatives of this XP-76 (tanks again!)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 24, 2017, 11:10:48 PM
As much as I'm loving these Bells I really hope we get to see a Griffon F-11!!! Would this be with the Shackleton-esque annular radiator or a more svelte boom?

Also any chance of a PR P-45??

Great stuff!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 25, 2017, 12:28:15 AM
Oh my that Bell XP-76 is so slim and sleek with gentle curves in all the right places!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 25, 2017, 04:10:11 AM
Thanks folks! Great stuff Tophe!

As much as I'm loving these Bells I really hope we get to see a Griffon F-11!!! Would this be with the Shackleton-esque annular radiator or a more svelte boom?

EH: There's not much in the historical records about the Hughes F-11B/R-11B. Attached is part of a GA blueprint for the unbuilt XF-11B. I believe that to be the only image that survives of the proposed 'B model.

Like the F-11, Griffon engining concepts originated with the wooden-airframed Hughes DX-2/P-73 series. Here, the British powerplant was seen as a potential back-up to the complex Wright R-2160 Tornado. The first serious consideration came with the Griffon II-powered D-5B/XA-37B. In both cases, underslung radiators were to be used on each boom.

The concept of a Griffon-powered F-11B only became practical once Griffon outputs exceeded 2,300 hp. The Griffon's reduced frontal area was helpful but, even then, a serious airframe weight-reduction problem would have been required for the F-11B to be practical.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 25, 2017, 04:19:44 AM
Thanks for that. Fascinating!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 25, 2017, 11:39:01 AM

Bell 'Export Fighters' -- The P-76 Bastion

The Bell P-76A consisted of a small pre-production run fitted with Griffon 61s and Rotol Jablo props in England. All deployed P-76As went to B Group of the 352nd Fighter Squadron to form an overseas familiarization flight for the 353rd Fighter Group.

(Top) 'Keylock Kids': a Bell P-76A of B Group, 352nd Fighter Squadron, 353rd Fighter Group based at Raydon in Suffolk. Later named 'Sweet Helen II', this Bastion was flown by the commander of the P-76 familiarization flight. Capt. HF Mace had come from an OTU (having previously flown Mustangs with the 362nd FS, 357 FG).

The first full-production model Bastion was the Bell P-76C powered by a Hudson V-2240-5. The P-76C was the 353rd Fighter Group's first Bastion into full service and the only model of the type to actually see combat in WW2. All P-76Cs went to the 352nd FS. At war's end, P-76Ds with high compression V-2240-9 Griffons were re-equipping the 350 FS but this process was not complete when news of Germany's surrender was received.

(Bottom) A near-new Bell P-76C, also of the 352nd FS, 353rd FG at Raydon. 'Princess Marie' has complete 352rd markings but, for some reason has yet to have its anti-glare panel applied. 'Princess Marie' was lost over Germany. Pilot, Lt. Billy J Lancaster bailed out but was reported as 'Missing'. The ground crew have dutifully recorded Lt. Lancaster's 3 1/2 ground kills.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 25, 2017, 03:15:44 PM
about the Hughes F-11B/R-11B. Attached is part of a GA blueprint for the unbuilt XF-11B. I believe that to be the only image that survives of the proposed 'B model.
Wonderful picture! While... texts are blurred, I cannot see if the line from the canopy is "antenna" or "fuselage" (either triplex-fuselage twin-engine layout or asymmetric twin-fuselage single-engine)... That makes me dream. I am willing to illustrate these dreams, and at the same time I would like to know which one is true.

EDIT: my interprétations of your profile, thanks!:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 25, 2017, 06:11:51 PM
Wow! That is some serious tail! Very little P-39 DNA in there anymore but I really like where you have taken this lineage. Doubt it has any performance concerns versus the P-51 now.

Again, really enjoying this series. Please say its not quite the end yet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2017, 07:07:54 AM
... Also any chance of a PR P-45?? ...

For Empty Handed: The Bell F-7 was the tactical reconnaissance version of the P-45 Bataan. Two strategic reconnaissance versions were planned with Rolls-Royce (F-7A) or Packard Merlins (F-7B). Neither was built. The first completed variant was the Allison-engined F-7C.

Other than cameras and some minor equipment changes, the F-7C was similar to the P-45C Bataan while the Curtiss-built F-7D was essentially a camera-equipped P-45E. Curtiss followed this with the F-7E, a Tac/R derivative of the P-45J. Many of these reconnaissance fighters were passed on to Allied air forces when USAAF units standardized on the F-6 Mustang.

The first Ally to receive F-7Cs was the Aviazione Cobelligerante Italiana. The Italians received their 'Photo-Bataans' as hand-me-downs from the USAAF 3d Photo Recon Group's 5th Photo Recon Squadron (at Pomigliano) when that unit took on long-range F-10 Mitchells in 1944 ... although, apparently, some of the donated aircraft originated with the 111th TacR. ACI F-7s served with the 238ª Squadriglia, 101º Gruppo, 5° Stormo flying out of Nuova Airfield in the Campomarino region. All ACI operations were over the Balkans (primarily Albania and the Dalmatian coast).

(Top) 'J.Baracca', a rather scruffy ex-USAAF Bell F-7C-2BE of the ACI overpainted with Italian markings. This F-7C shows vestiges of former 111th TacR ownership on its rudder.

The French also received ex-USAAF 'Photo-Bataans'. GR II/33 'Mouette du Rhin' converted to Bells - a mix of F-7Cs and F-7Es - in Sept 1944 at Dijon. The F-7Cs were left in Dijon for conversion training when the squadron moved north. Almost as soon as the war in Europe ended, GR II/33 converted to F-6K Mustangs.

(Bottom) A French Bell F-7E-1CU of GR II/33 'Mouette du Rhin'. Note that this unarmed aircraft has been covered in a thick coat of polish to wring as much airspeed out the Bell as possible.

__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 27, 2017, 01:49:42 PM
Wow! :-* And with so many details it cannot be invented. Just secret, revealed after many decades in secrecy.. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on February 27, 2017, 07:06:28 PM
Thank you!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2017, 10:33:49 AM

Bell 'Export Fighter' Finale -- The P-76F 'Super Bastion'

The ultimate piston-engined Bell fighter was the P-76F 'Super Bastion'. This Bell Model-43 is sometimes regarded as the P-76C with contra-rotating propellers ... but there were other, more subtler airframe changes planned for the 'F model.

The P-76F was, indeed, fitted with contra-rotating props -- the 6-bladed Aeroproducts AD6464-H1. To balance that substantial propeller and its complex reduction gearing, the entire Hudson V-2240-13 Griffon was moved further aft. This was only possible because the V-2240-13 employed a down-draft carburetor -- a Bendix-Stromberg PR-58E2 pressure injection carb - allowing the supercharger to snuggle in above the retracted main wheels.

The 'Super Bastion' also sported longer-span laminar-flow wings than the P-76C. These new wings had the same profile and basic planview other than featuring squared-off wing tips. The overall effect being a slightly more compact and better-balanced fighter than the earlier models of Bastion.

The sole 'Super Bastion' delivered to the USAAF before Japan's surrender was the first XP-76F. In part, P-76F development had been delayed by the complex propeller system. But, Germany's surrender had also skewed the requirement. Instead of a high-performance medium-altitude fighter, the USAAF was suddenly interested in fighters better able to counter the menace of low-flying kamikaze aircraft. Indeed, the second XP-76 was to have its carburetion adjusted for maximum performance at low altitude.

The first XP-76F used standard P-76C tail surfaces but test-flying quickly revealed the need for even more keel area. Production P-76Fs were to have further enlarged fins and much bigger dorsal fins. Production P-76Fs were also intended to have cowling-integral engine mounts (whereas the XP-76F had simple tubular mounts). The P-76F was to retain the P-76C's six-machine gun armament although there was debate as to whether cannons were preferable when engaging the kamikaze.

(Top) The sole XP-76F 'Super Bastion' in late 1947 when on loan to the NACA Flight Propulsion Laboratory (formerly NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory) at Cleveland, OH.

Assembly of the second XP-76F was cancelled with the end of the war. The components were retained as spares for the first prototype. In 1946, Bell regained ownership of the second XP-76F airframe with the intention of modifying the aircraft as a racer. To be competitive in the upcoming 1947 National Air Races at Cleveland, the aircraft would require a drag-reduction program and a low altitude engine. The latter was provided by Hudson Aero-Engines who, along with Aeroproducts would join Bell Aircraft in sponsoring the 'Super Bastion' racer.

Drag-reduction consisted of a new side-hinged, low-profile canopy and the wings were shorted at the tips by just over two feet. Plans were in place to enlarge the vertical tail surfaces as needed but that was never done. On its first test-flight, the new Hudson V-2240-15 began to vibrate violently. Bell's Chief Test Pilot, Jack Woolams, throttled-back and circled to return to the Wheatfield airport.

Witnesses on the ground reported the 6-bladed propeller unit then parting company with the aircraft. The pilot jettisoned the canopy but was unable to bail out as the aircraft entered a spin. Woolams was killed when the propellerless 'Super Bastion' racer crashed in Lake Erie. In the aftermath of this tragedy, Larry Bell ended all corporate support for air-racing and forbade Bell test pilots from flying racers.

(Bottom) The 'Super Bastion' racer, NX-3970. The Hudson logo was displayed on the portside cowling, the 'AeroProp' logo on the starboard. During the war, the 'Super Bastion' program had adopted the cartoon charcter Daffy Duck as its mascot. On the fin is the character from 1943's Yankee Doodle Daffy.

And, as Daffy would say: "That's All Folks!"

________________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 28, 2017, 02:16:38 PM
Very good, once more! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 28, 2017, 07:31:17 PM
I love the ''Super Bastion'' racer...unfortunate that a tragedy ended his race career.
Great job as usual.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 04, 2017, 11:22:15 AM
Thanks folks!

Dalle Corse alla Caccia is my Macchi M.C.72-based entry into the Floaty GB:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7064.msg122656#msg122656 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7064.msg122656#msg122656)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2017, 12:13:19 PM
I'm moving house tomorrow and won't have an internet connection for at least a month. I'll check in through wifi hotspots if I can ... just to dispel any rumours about internment in the Red Star GB re-education camp   ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2017, 06:02:00 PM
just to dispel any rumours about internment in the Red Star GB re-education camp   ;)

Sure comrade...you just keep telling people that.  Your stint in the re-education camp will do you wonders...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 16, 2017, 02:54:35 AM
Sure comrade...you just keep telling people that.  Your stint in the re-education camp will do you wonders...


Da, very refreshing! Currently, GLONASS coverage is excellent (outages of between one-to-three months being well within acceptable productivity quota goals).

_____________________

A fairly simple whif wherein Air Corps funding for Harold Caminez's Allison V-1710 engine design was cancelled once US airship development ended. As such, the V-1710C is not available for use by Curtiss.

French use of the Curtiss Hawk 75A had shown that the USAAC's radial-engined P-36s would be readily outclassed by potential German opponents. Plans were underway for US production of the Rolls-Royce Merlin but the British insisted on exclusive supply so long as the US remained officially neutral. The British had, however, provided the Air Corps with captured German equipment to study.

Of most interest was a damaged Messerschmitt Bf 109E-4/N fighter, W.Nr. 1190, which had been shot down over East Dean on 30 Sept 1940. Upon arrival in the US, this Messerschmitt was delivered to Curtiss for inspection. Although Curtiss' primary interest was in studying Messerschmitt production techniques, it was also readily apparent that the German Daimler-Benz DB 601N engine could be fitted into the Curtiss Hawk 75A.

Photo of Curtiss workers unloading W.Nr. 1190: http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_N.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_N.html)

While Curtiss set about installing the captured DB 601N into a Air Corps' Curtiss P-36 airfame, a crash program was undertaken to reverse-engineer this powerplant for US production. Curtiss found that it was necessary to increase the main undercarriage legs to improve propeller ground-clearance (the new legs compressed as the gear was retracted). To improve control and re-establish the centre-of-gravity, the vertical tailplane was also moved aft.

(Top) Prototype XP-40 converted by fitting a USAAC-supplied P-36A with a Daimler-Benz DB 601N.

The Hudson Motor Car Company undertook engine production. The 33.93 litre DB 601N entered US service as the Hudson V-2070 'Hornet'. Like the German original, the V-2070 produced 1,200 hp on 100 octane fuel. The US was also interested in the German motorkanone arrangement. In place of the Messerschmitt's Oerlikon cannon, the USAAC chose a 20 mm Madsen gun (which would replace the P-36's twin cowl guns). Delays in Madsen deliveries led to production P-40s to be armed with a single .50-calibre motor-gun along with twin .30-calibre wing guns.

The initial-production P-40 model was quickly eclipsed by the P-40A with four wings guns and the Madsen motor-cannon. This The P-40A was the first model to equip active-service squadrons (the handful of P-40s were employed as trainers and on experimental duties). The P-40A was fitted with a V-2070-2 engine and modest armour protection for the pilot (fuel-tank protection would not arrive until the heavier P-40B).

(Bottom) Curtiss P-40A, USAAC 18th Pursuit Squadron (note lengthened rear fuselage).

______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 16, 2017, 07:10:13 AM
Very nice!  It will be very interesting to watch the evolution of this design concept.

I wonder how installation of that engine on a Republic design would compare with a Caproni-Reggiane Re.2001, given the similarities between the Re.2000 and the P-35.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 16, 2017, 08:56:10 AM

Da, very refreshing! Currently, GLONASS coverage is excellent (outages of between one-to-three months being well within acceptable productivity quota goals).

You been selling 'favours' to the commandant again comrade?  That's obviously the only way you would get such favourable treatment.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 16, 2017, 10:33:38 AM
Beautiful! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 17, 2017, 03:35:33 AM

Thanks folks.

Evan: I hadn't thought of going further with this but now ...  >:D

You been selling 'favours' to the commandant again comrade?  That's obviously the only way you would get such favourable treatment.

If we are going to meet this collectives announced gross production quotas, all must suffer for their art. BTW, I've given him your number  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 20, 2017, 07:11:31 AM

Bell Aircraft also received a DB 601N for study. This engine was incorporated into a new private venture fighter design -- the Bell Model 18. With a typically radial approach, Bell adopted a tricycle landing gear for their Model 18. This decision proved to be Bell's undoing.

On its maiden flight, the prototype Model 18 was put through its paces over Lake Ontario. The machine handled very well and top speed in the lightly-loaded (and unarmoured) aircraft was above expectations. However, on approach to Buffalo, the nose gear failed to lock in the down position. As the fighter alighted the nose gear folded and the Model 18 pitched onto its nose. In the ensuing crash landing, the fighter's back was broken and its DB 601N's propeller reduction gear was torn from the aircraft.

The Air Corps took the fate of the prototype as a warning and no further Model 18 fighters were ordered.

(Top) The sole Model 18 prototype as rolled out at Bell Aircraft's Buffalo plant. Despite its jaunty tail stripes, the Bell Model 18 was not an Air Corps aircraft.

(Bottom) The prototype Model 18 as it appeared on its one-and-only flight. Note that the belly radiator is only partly retracted. This radiator was never fully-retracted in flight.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 20, 2017, 07:13:38 AM

Another US firm which received captured Daimler-Benz engines for study was the Republic Aviation Corporation. Republic had drafted a Merlin-engined fighter - the AP-10 - to Air Corps circular proposal 39-770. After initial interest by the USAAC (as the XP-47/XP-47A), it became apparent that this design was already obsolete. Accordingly, work on the XP-47/XP-47A was terminated in September 1940.

Republic's Alexander Kartveli shifted his design focus onto a larger, radial-engined AP-10, the turbo-supercharged XP-47B Thunderbolt. Thus, Republic was not in a position to offer the Army a new DB-601-powered fighter design. Republic's predecessor, Seversky Aircraft had developed a liquid-cooled derivative of its P-35 fighter - the AP-3. In the absence of a suitable powerplant, the AP-3 had stalled. However, it was now obvious that such an adaptation could serve as an effective DB 601 testbed. Accordingly, the prototype AP-7A was converted to take a captured German engine as the AP-3D.

The DB 601Aa powerplant, taken from a downed He 111P bomber, was not ideal for a fighter application but the AP-3D allowed Republic to gain experience with this liquid-cooled engine. Testing showed that the AP-3D left much to be desired. Balance was poor and top speed was well below expectations. NACA wind tunnel testing would later show that the main fault lay with the contouring of the AP-3D's ventral radiator bath. However, by that time, the one-off AP-3D had nose-over while taxiing on soft ground, damaging its DB 601Aa beyond economical repair.

(Top) The prototype Republic AP-3D upon roll-out at Farmingdale, NY. Prior to the AP-3D's first flight, registration were added and, at some later point, the Republic logo appeared on the fin.

Republic had already moved on. Work was well underway on the XP-47B Thunderbolt. It was decided to develop a smaller, Hudson V-2070-engined fighter using as many P-47B airframe components as was feasible. [1]  The result was the AP-11 which incorporated P-47B tail surfaces and Thunderbolt wing panels joined on the centreline rather than to the fuselage sides. Compared with the P-47B, the AP-11 fuselage was narrower and somewhat shorter. It also lacked the P-47B's deep belly since the AP-11 had no turbosupercharger fitted.

Dubbed Thunderbird, [2] the AP-11 was accepted into USAAF service as the P-44B - a designation 'recycled' from the P-44 Warrior which had been cancelled in September 1940. The original Air Corps order for 80 P-44 was transferred to an equivalent number of P-44B-1RE fighters (which would include the prototype XP-44B). Large follow-on orders resulted in Thunderbird production by both Republic and Curtiss -- P-44Ds and P-44Fs built by the latter ultimately replacing production of Curtiss' own P-40 fighter.

(Bottom) A P-44D-3CU Thunderbird - the Curtiss-built equivalent of Republic's P-44B - in USAAF service.

___________________

[1] To leave Kartveli free to perfect the XP-47N, this work was undertaken by former collegue Alexander Gregor who had arrived back from CCF in early 1940.

[2] Originally, 'Thunderclap' was proposed for the P-44B. That name was rejected due to its slang connotations.

___________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 20, 2017, 10:12:16 PM
There's something unnatural/disconcerting to me about the inverted-vee P-40 (great work nonetheless) but the Thunderbird is very shapely! Great stuff. Could we have a bubble-top or two please? (sorry)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 20, 2017, 10:49:29 PM
I like the look of the P-44D-3CU Thunderbird
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 24, 2017, 03:55:39 AM
Cheers! EH: You bet, I'll have a go at some 'bubble-tops'.

--------------------------

The USAAF received other submissions for other fighters to be powered by the Hudson V-2070 'Hornet' engine. One set of submissions from an unexpected source came from North American Aviation.

For study purposes, North American had received a Messerschmitt Bf-109E-1 damaged in a crash landing. NAA's primary goal was to glean what it could from contemporary construction techniques employed by German industry. Although the Bf-109E-1 was far from airworthy, NAA was able to study Messerschmitt's unique fuselage contruction approach. Other than crushed radiator housings, the German fighter's wings were completely intact.

A contract was received from the USAAC to fit these wings (and the Messerschmitt's main undercarriage) to a modified North American BC-1A trainer. The object was the development of a more useful combat trainer with built-in wing armament and great speed. NAA constructed a new BC-1 centre section which only extended to the fuselage sides. The Bf-109 wings bolted directly onto this truncate centre section as did the Messerschmitt's main undercarriage legs.

(Top) North American BC-1M combat trainer conversion prior to delivery to Wright Field.

The resulting North American BC-1M was delivered to Wright Field for evaluation. A noticeable increase in level speed was noted but at the cost of inferior manoeuvrability and low-speed handing. In the assessment, NAA was said to have met the goals of the conversion exercise. But, with its 'trickier' handling, the BC-1M was judged to have little utility as a future combat trainer.

It the meantime, NAA surprised the USAAF with an unsolicited submission for a new V-2070-powered fighter. This Ed Schmued design was heavily influenced by the Bf-109E and several variants were offered. In its most basic form, the fighter was a near-direct copy of the Messerschmitt. Notable changes included a new canopy on a slightly enlarged cockpit. The cockpit was also moved aft to allow cowl-mounted, synchronized Browning .50-calibre machine guns. A completely new tailplane was also introduced. [1]

The second proposed variant replaced Messerschmitt's twin wing-mounted radiators with a new belly-mounted radiator bath. In variant 2A, armament was to be 1 x 20 mm Madsen and 2 x cowl-mounted .50-calibres. In variant 2B, (Centre) NAA proposed substituting a 20 mm Oerlikon for the Madsen and retaining the Bf-109's twin Oerlikon wing guns.

The third proposed variant (Bottom) introduced an entirely new laminar-flow wing. [2] This broader-chord wing necessitated a fuselage 'stretch' but allowed the use of a new wide-track main undercarriage (a retractable tailwheel was also adopted). Armament for the third variant was to comprise the 20mm Madsen motor cannon and 4 x wing-mounted .50-calibre guns. In this variant, the cowl-mounted Brownings were eliminated.

For an unsolicited submission, the North American fighter proposal generated a lot of discussion amongst planners. Were performance estimates realized, the NAA fighter (particularly the third variant) would have a considerable edge over the selected Republic P-44B Thunderbird. However, North American was a maker of basic trainers with no prior experience in fighter design. Accordingly, NAA's fighter submission was declined and the firm encouraged to focus on trainer production and on perfecting its new medium bomber design.

__________________

[1] The Bf-109E-1 provided to NAA had nosed over after belly landing. Both the tail surfaces and the cockpit canopy were heavily damaged in the ensuing crash.

[2] This laminar-flow wing was based on Curtiss XP-46 data provided to NAA by the NACA.

__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 24, 2017, 12:01:21 PM
Beautiful P-51/Bf-109 mixes, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Hardrada55 on May 25, 2017, 10:05:57 PM
Reminds me of designs I've seen of the SAAB L-23 (J-23). 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 26, 2017, 12:50:18 AM
Apophenia, you made me dream of a whole family, thanks again!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 26, 2017, 02:09:12 AM
Tophe: Thanks for those! I particularly like your Apo-83E  :)

Hardrada55: I didn't have Projekt L 23 in mind when I did the profiles. But, you're right, the laminar-flow one really does look like that Saab concept!
 - http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/saabcanc/ (http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviation/text/saabcanc/)
 - http://i.imgur.com/wB5jruC.png (http://i.imgur.com/wB5jruC.png)

__________________

Now, a pair of 'bubble-top' P-44 Thunderbirds for Empty Handed ...

(Top) 'Touch of Texas' was a P-44E-1RE, the 'bubble-top' development of Republic's 'razor-back' P-44B-4RE. These early-production 'bubble-tops' were virtually identical to the XP-44E conversion prototype.

Like the P-44B-4 before it, the P-44E-1RE was a 'cannon-fighter', armed with a 20 mm motor-cannon and four wing-mounted .50-cal Brownings. '2Z*M' was also later fitted with wing-racks for bombs. [1]

'Touch of Texas' is finished in the standard factory scheme of Olive Drab upper surfaces and Neutral Gray undersides.

(Bottom) 'Ole Cock' was a P-44F-2CU Thunderbird, the Curtiss-built equivalent of Republic's P-44E. A 'gun-fighter', the P-44F was armed with six .50-cal Brownings - 4 x wing-mounted machine guns and 2 x synchronized cowl guns.

'HV*A' wears the standard paint scheme but Medium Green 42 has been used to break up the Olive Drab (and patch over badly-worn paint work). Newly applied are 'Invasion Stripes' for recognition during Operation Overlord.

__________________

[1] These retro-fitted wing-racks were not plumbed so only P-44E-3s and later could carry drop tanks.

__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 26, 2017, 02:25:36 AM
Interesting look.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 26, 2017, 11:40:40 AM
 :-* (lovely P-44-DB601-bubble) :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on May 26, 2017, 04:05:20 PM
I really like the P-44 series, Apophenia, especially the bubble-tops. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on May 26, 2017, 06:47:54 PM
Certainly looks interesting with that engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on May 26, 2017, 09:59:20 PM
The Bubbletops look fantastic! Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2017, 02:46:31 AM
The Army Air Force was not the only arm with an interest in the Hudson V-2070 'Hornet'. [1] The US Navy also saw potential in this V-12 engine.

The Bureau of Aeronautics issued a requirement for studies of fast-climbing fleet interceptors. Grumman chose not to respond to this requirement but submissions were received from new-comer McDonnell and well-established Vought-Sikorsky as well as Brewster and former USN fighter supplier, Curtiss.

Since 1939, McDonnell had been working up an advanced Army fighter with a centrally-mounted engine driving twin propellers through extension shafts. For the Army fighter, pusher props were proposed. For the BuAer submission, a similar shipboard interceptor was conceived. Several arrangements were drafted and, in consultation with BuAer officials, an all-over smaller fighter was designed with twin, shaft-driven tractor propellers.

(Top) Late 1941, McDonnell engineering mockup for its proposed V-2070-powered naval interceptor.

Vought-Sikorsky's submission was much more conventional. Rex Beisel and staff drafted a new fighter that combined features of Vought's XF4U-1 Corsair and the German Bf-109. The result was a smaller and much lighter naval interceptor concept. The rear fuselage of the production F4U was to be used almost unchanged but the fighter's layout was much changed from the Corsair.

In place of the Corsair's inverted-gull, an 'unbent' wing was employed. This wing shared the Corsair wing's planform but, structurally, owed more to the Messerschmitt. So too did the Vought's outwards-retracting main undercarriage. The Hudson engine was conventionally mounted but Vought was proposing a heavier motor-cannon armament. Two additional .50-calibre machine guns would be wing-mounted to fire outside of the propeller arc.

(Bottom) Vought-Sikorsky naval interceptor concept. Note the twin coolant radiators let into the sides of the rear fuselage (to avoid radiator baths 'digging in' when belly-landing at sea).

To the BuAer, neither the McDonnell nor the Vought interceptor concepts warranted further development. The Vought submission was seen as too big for its engine and likely too heavy to perform well. Worse, the design relied upon a variant of V-2070 that could accommodate a new cannon design (of 25-to-30 mm) -- neither of which existed at that point.

McDonnell was congratulated for its effort but the resulting design was seen as excessively complex while extension-shafts and gearing were likely to push all-up weight beyond naval shipboard fighter limits. The BuAer also had concerns about shipboard operation of an aircraft fitted with a tricycle undercarriage.

__________________

[1] Since 'Hornet' was already associated a Pratt & Whitney radial engine, Hudson's appellation for its V-2070 was never accepted as a Service type name.

__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on May 30, 2017, 10:25:41 PM
Wow! Marvelous! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 01, 2017, 03:50:42 AM

The Curtiss submission for a US Navy Hudson V-2070-powered interceptor was simply a navalized version of the firm's P-40B. This concept was quickly rejected by the BuAer.

Brewster's earliest submission had been derived from its twin-boomed Model 33 studies. The BuAer acknowledged the cleverness of this design - a revised, forward-placed cockpit had a smooth, Airacuda-like canopy and its twin booms folded forward over the central nacelle for maximum carrier-storage compactness. The BuAer was less glowing in its assessment of Brewster performance estimates for the Model 33H.

(Top) The Brewster Model 33DB concept in its forward-cockpit, 4-machine gun armed form.

(Centre) Twin tails were adopted to facilitate onboard folding for stowage.

Once the tailbooms were folded, airframe height could also be lessened by compressing the nose wheel leg. The object was even more compact stowage below decks. The BuAer was impressed with the originality of Brewster's Model 33H but concluded that airframe weight, as with the McDonnell submission would be excessive.

Ironically, the most promising Brewster submission had been included only for comparison purposes with the firm's preferred Model 33H. The Brewster Model 41 was a much more conventional design derived, in part, from Brewster's in-service F2A-3 airframe. Like the Vought-Sikorsky submission, Brewster based its wing upon that of the F2A-3 but revised the structure to take a narrow-track undercarriage much like that of the Bf-109.

The BuAer concluded that the Brewster Model 41 represented a low-risk development which would put a V-2070-powered interceptor aboard US Navy aircraft carriers in the shortest amount of time. What the BuAer could not anticipate was the muddled management at Brewster and the resulting production delivery delays for its designs. Unfortunately, the Model 41 was no exception.

(Bottom) Prototype Brewster XF3A-1 Brigand delivered for testing at NAS Pax River.

Brewster's final fighter design never saw combat with the US Navy. Deliveries were glacially slow and the USN quickly lost interest in the project. All F3A-1 and F3A-2 Brigands were redirected to US Marine Corps squadrons. The Brigands served the USMC well but numbers were never large and the production run was short. By mid-1944, all Marine Brigands had been retired from active service.

__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 01, 2017, 04:17:09 AM
I definitely like the Brewster 33 DB,it has a Schelde vibe and I like it alot,Brigand is also interesting...lovely new profiles  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on June 01, 2017, 12:43:10 PM
love those inverted engines !  I hope the US did better than Japan with building the DB designs :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on June 01, 2017, 12:58:53 PM
Beautiful stuff!!!  So, did Bell offer designs with the Hudson engine?

BTW, I think the Vought-Sikorsky design might still need the inverted gull wing for propeller clearance with the ground or deck.  Too, I could see a development of that one using leading edge radiators to reduce drag.

Raafif, since the Italians didn't have any problems building the DB designs, I would reckon the US wouldn't.  ISTR a claim that the Japanese did have problems because they reversed the engine rotation to work with the propellers they had.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 01, 2017, 10:38:50 PM
 :-* :-* I love your Brewster twin-boomer (with a new engine)...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 03, 2017, 03:02:00 AM
Thanks folks!

Alex: Well spotted! The de Schelde S.21 was exactly what I was going for ... with all due apologies to Theo Slot  :D

Evan: Yep, Bell offered its prototype Model 18 fighter ... and any similarity to the Me 309 is purely coincidental  ;)
 -- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg126122#msg126122 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg126122#msg126122)

Agreed on the Vought-Sikorsky concept. Overall, the airframe would've just been too big for the engine. US DB 603, perhaps?  >:D

__________________________________

And now, the final installment on US Hudson V-2070-powered fighters ...

Lockheed had made several attempts to develop a twin-engined fighter under various Model 22 concepts. It was the radial-engined, twin-boomed Model 24 which finally received a contract -- but in the photo-reconnaissance role as the F-4A Lightning. One F-4A airframe was held back for conversion from bulky radials to more streamlined Hudson V-2070 V-12s. Fitted with nose-mounted machine guns, this aircraft was redesignated XP-38 Lightning. [1]

(Top) Lockheed XP-38 Lightning prototype conversion. Note boom-mounted radiators for V-2070 engines.

The production P-38A fighter achieved some success operating from bases in Iceland as a long-range interceptor against German Fw 200 raiders. But, the P-38A was a low-rate production aircraft -- being neither fast enough nor manoeuvrable enough to operate against the best enemy fighters.

Lockheed, together with NACA, had studied methods for improving the Model 24's aerodynamics. The most promising was a new, underslung central fuselage pod. (Centre) Other, non-aerodynamic benefits of this revised fuselage arrangement was greater internal fuel tankage (all close to the aircraft's c/g) and a shorter (and therefore lighter) nose gear. The prototype XP-38 was fitted with such a nacelle as the XP-38C. [2]

(Bottom) Sole prototype Lockheed XP-38C conversion. Note nose-mounted machine guns.

As a fighter, the XP-38C Lightning left much to be desired. It was faster and longer-ranged than the P-38A but visibility from the cockpit was poor in all directions other than directly in front. However, this lack of all-around visibility was not a major disadvantage for the photo-recon role. Accordingly, the XP-38C was disarmed and fitted with camera equipment as the prototype XF-5A Lightning -- the first of many high-speed photo-reconnaissance F-5As.

__________________

[1] For the production P-38, each V-2070 engine was also to be fitted with a 20 mm motor-cannon.

[2] The XP-38B had been a production P-38A employed as an armaments trials airframe.

__________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 03, 2017, 11:05:22 AM
Great!
I have drawn slanting views to compare, thanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 03, 2017, 11:54:08 AM
Thanks also for the windtunnel model photograph, that made me dream... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2017, 06:01:16 AM
Great stuff ... thanks Tophe  :)  Now, your passenger versions has the creative juices flowing  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2017, 06:06:54 AM
One for Tophe (et fils) that didn't fit into my Аэробус - the Soviet Aerobus Program  theme for the  Red Star Soviet GB.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7257.msg126742#msg126742 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7257.msg126742#msg126742)

Ilyushin has proposed passenger versions of its IL-76 cargo aircraft a few times. I suspect the proposed version that I have a section drawing for to be too late to be for the RW Aerobus program.

The upper, scrap view is my take on that later passenger variant (which I've called 'IL-76P'). But I couldn't resist a whif version too. Below is the 'IL-176P' with twin Lotarev D-18T engines and an IL-86 nose section grafted on.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 13, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
Great double deckers! :-*

I will show them to my son as soon as he awakes (it is the early morning here on my side of the planet) ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on June 13, 2017, 06:44:14 PM
It looks fantastic,it would be impressive to see them in the real world.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on June 14, 2017, 01:13:17 AM
Opinion of Tophe's son (Jacky, 8 years old): very pretty, thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on June 15, 2017, 12:44:05 AM
I'm fascinated by both P-44Db601 and XP-38C :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 30, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
Eastern Aircraft F2M Egret Lightweight Carrier Fighter

The Eastern Aircraft Division of General Motors was formed with the hope of building P-47s for the USAAF. Instead, Eastern began production of Grumman aircraft - FM-1/-2 Wildcats and TBM-1 Avengers for the US Navy. In effect, Eastern Aircraft became an alternative supplier for Grumman aircraft (and the sole supplier of Wildcats after Grumman switched production to the F6F Hellcat).

While the future of Eastern's Avenger production was secure, the obsolescence clock was ticking on the Wildcat as a carrier fighter. GM presented the USN's Bureau of Aeronautics with an unsolicited proposal for an ungraded FM-3 Wildcat. This fighter was to be powered by a 1,425 hp Wright R-1820-72W (or -74W) Cyclone and have a reshaped upper fuselage fitted with a clear-view, bubble canopy. The BuAer encouraged detailed design of the revised fuselage and provided Eastern with details of the bubble canopy being designed by Grumman for the F8F Bearcat.

Now aware of the Bearcat, Eastern design staff changed their direction. Instead of incremental improvements to the FM series, a major redesign of the Wildcat airframe was undertaken. The wing was repositioned lowered on the fuselage. This was less ideal aerodynamically but allowed for the installation of the longer undercarriage needed for a larger diameter propeller (driven by the new twin-row Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine). Tail surfaces were also slightly enlarged but the rest of the airframe remained similar to the FM-3 proposal.

Although taken off guard by the Eastern submission, the BuAer immediately recognized that this proposed 'lightweight' fighter might be service-ready sooner than the Grumman F8F. With Japanese kamikazi attacks increasing, this could be a critical advantage. Eastern's 'Super Wildcat' was accorded orders for a prototype and low-rate production as the XF2M-1 and F2M-1 SuperCat.

Grumman objected strenuously to this 'Cat name and to the re-use of their Bearcat canopy. The BuAer insisted that the canopy design could be used by Eastern (with Grumman receiving royalties) but that the popular name would be changed to Egret (as already applied to proposed Lend-Lease models for the Royal Navy).

The prototype XF2M-1 was flown at Linden, NJ, in June 1944 powered by an R-2800-18W. The first production F2M-1 flew in Dec 1944 with service deliveries beginning in late Jan 1944. [1] Engine supply problems resulted in all F2M-1s being fitted with 2,000 hp R-2800-10W radials. This was, to a degree, a bonus since the F2M-1 engines were identical to those of in-service F6F Hellcats.

Follow-on F2M-2s were to be powered by 2,100 hp R-2800-22Ws and F2M-3s with R-2800-34Ws. As it happens, the only R-2800-22W-powered fighter was the prototype converted to XF2M-2 configuration in Sept 1944. The F2M-3 remained an unbuilt project -- all F2M and FAA Egret orders were cancelled immediately after VJ Day.

_________________________________________

[1] Almost all F2M-1 Egrets came from Eastern's 'super-assembly' plant at Linden but the Trenton-Ternsteldt facility (intended to build the F2M-3 Egret) handed over a small number of F2M-1s before all of Eastern's fighter contracts were cancelled in mid-Sept 1945.

_________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 30, 2017, 02:17:15 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on June 30, 2017, 05:16:23 AM
 :-*LOOOVVVEEE the F2M - best Wildcat upgrade yet!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 01, 2017, 02:35:15 AM
Cheers Alex  :D  Now I'm musing on a mixed-power Corsair ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 11, 2017, 01:53:52 AM
Belated congratulations for the bubble Super-Wildcat! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2017, 03:18:51 AM
I was working on some Hispano Aviación Buchón developments for the Racing GB and decided that some explanatory, non-racing variants were needed...

First up are the Isotta-Fraschini Delta-powered 2-seat trainer and COIN fighter developments. In this scenario, the I-F powerplant was assembled under license in Spain by Hispano-Suiza Barcelona. This Italian air-cooled inverted V-12 engine powered both racers and regular Ejército del Aire service types.

Racers: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128272#msg128272 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128272#msg128272)

(Top) Hispano Aviación S.A. (HASA) HA.1115-D1E [1] Paloma (Pigeon) 2-seat HA.1110 development in standard EdA service scheme.

(Bottom) HASA HA.1116-D1L Milano (Kite) COIN fighter, 2 x wing-mounted 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns.
_________________________

[1] The designations shown are a mix of reality and whif. Hispano Aviación designs were given type numbers -- beginning with the HA.1109 (aka Bf 109J, the licensed Bf 109G). The Ejército del Aire then applied a suffix designation comprised of a letter for engine type, a number for sub-type variant, and a letter for role.

Real World type numbers were: HA.1109 fighter; HA.1110 2-seat conversion trainer; HA.1111 2-seater with tip tanks; and HA.1112 cannon-armed fighter. All other type numbers mentioned here are whifs (AFAIK).

RW engine designators were: 'J' (Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y); 'K' (HS 12Z-89); and 'M' (Rolls-Royce Merlin); as in the HA.1109-J1L, HA.1109-K1L, and HA.1109-M1L (the machine gun-armed predecessor to the HA.1112-M1L Buchón). Whif additionals are 'D' for I-F Delta and 'P' for R-R Griffon (with the assumption that 'N' was used by the EdA for an engine type outside our story and 'O' was not used).

RW role designator for all 'Messerschmitt' types was 'L' for Línea (as in primera línea or front line). Whif additions are 'C' for Carreras (Race) and 'E' for Entrenamiento (Training) ... distinguishing here between an 'E' advanced trainer and an 'L' conversion trainer.

So, in the whif examples given above, the HA.1115-D1E Paloma is a Delta-powered advanced trainer derived from the HA.1109 series, and the HA.1116-D1L Milano is a related 'front line' development (in this case, a light COIN fighter). ... All proof positive that some of us actually like pointless complexity  ;D

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2017, 03:21:23 AM
Hispano Aviación unrealized Buchón-derivations -- the Merlin Fighters

Hispano Aviación's first attempt to improve the performance of the production model HA.1112 Buchón fighter was the HA.1114-M1L Super Buchón. This design mounted a higher-power, 1,700 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 powerplant. Aerodynamic improvements included a new, one-piece sliding canopy, retractable tail wheel, and smoother cowling (due to the Merlin 66's higher thrust-line).

The Ejército del Aire evaluated this concept, rejecting it in favour of more highly-developed derivatives of the in-service HA.1112-M1L Buchón. The engineering conversion prototype for the Merlin 66-powered fighter was later completed as the HA.1114-M1C Super Buchón Carreras racer.

HA.1114-C1L - http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128275#msg128275 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128275#msg128275)

Two further Merlin-engined proposals were also rejected by the EdA. The first was the HA.1117-M1L Gavilán (Sparrow-hawk) with a Merlin 113 engine and belly-mounted radiator. This radiator arrangement prohibited the use of a belly-mounted drop tank. In its place, the HA.1117-M1L was to mount twin wing tip tanks (as had been trialled earlier on the 2-seat HA.1111-K1L trainer). The HA.1117 also had a 2-seat trainer equivalent -- the proposed HA.1119-E1L Gorrión (Sparrow) -- again, with tip tanks and belly radiator.

Neither of these more advanced, Merlin-powered aircraft were built. EdA favour turned to Rolls-Royce Griffon-powered HA.1112 derivatives.
_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2017, 03:25:26 AM
Hispano Aviación unrealized Buchón-derivations -- the Griffon Fighters

The first Griffon-powered proposal was the HA.1118-P1L Halcón (Falcon), a 'least mod' Griffon adaptation of the HA.1117 Gavilán concept. Other than changing the engine mounts and cowling, the only other major changes were to be the installation of a redesigned vertical tailplane (which was to be taller and deepened in chord) and enlarged wing radiator baths. The engine was to be a 2,245 hp Griffon 72. After initial enthusiasm for the HA.1118 concept, the EdA concluded that this 'Super Buchón Grifón' would not represent a sufficient increase in performance to warrant production.

As with the HA.1114, the planned HA.1112 conversion to Griffon powerplant was completed as a racer -- the HA.1118-P1C Halcón Grifó [1].

HA.1118-P1C - http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128275#msg128275 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7275.msg128275#msg128275)

Hispano Aviación had another, more advanced Griffon-powered Buchón development in the works. The HA.1120 represented Hispano Aviación's last attempt to extend the design life of the HA.1109 series. The HA.1120 shared the unbuilt HA.1118 Halcón project's intended powerplant (in this case, a 2,420 hp Griffon 101) but also represented a fundamental redesign of the Buchón airframe.

The HA.1120 fuselage was to be modified in two major ways. First was fitting a raised cockpit covered by an all-around vision canopy. Second was a modest lengthening to accommodate mounting points for a completely new laminar-flow wing. This 3-piece wing featured a dihedral-less centre section which would mount strengthened and 'reversed' Buchón main undercarriage legs.

The HA.1120 was also to incorporate the HA.1118's enlarged tailplane (complete with Super Buchón-style retractable tailwheel). Like many such late piston-engined fighter projects, the HA.1120 project -- aka 'Pedro' -- was overtaken by faster, more advanced jet-engined concepts. The EdA lost iterest in the HA.1120-P1L proyecto and thus ended the line of fighters which had begun with Hispano Aviación's licensed Bf 109G, the HA.1109-J1L.
_________________________

[1] The use of Grifó in place of Grifón in the racer's name is odd. Grifón is the bird's name (as with the Rolls-Royce engine). Grifó refers to a mythical creature, the 'griffin'.
_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 18, 2017, 02:53:37 AM
Mixed-Power Corsairs - Part 1 -- Goodyear XF3G-1 'Rocket Corsair'

The XF3G-1 'Rocket Corsair' concept incorporated the German Walter HWK 109-509A-2 rocket engine as a booster for an updated version of Goodyear's 'fixed-wing' FG-1 fighter. The reverse-engined [1] rocket engine was to be installed in a revised rear fuselage. Rocket fuel was to be separated between a hydrazine/methanol tank behind the cockpit and hydrogen peroxide in two underfuselage drop tanks.

To facilitated maintenance of the rocket engine, the entire rear fuselage was made detachable. To ensure that the tailplane was not effected by rocket exhaust, the stabilizers were raised which, in turn required that the vertical tail be raised for elevator clearance.

The XF3G-1 was to incorporate a bubble canopy similar to Goodyear's FG-7 (R-2800-8W) and F2G-1 (R-4360) Corsairs. In its intended counter-Kamikaze role, the F3G was to use its rocket engine for higher intercept speeds. The BuAer viewed a mockup of the 'Rocket Corsair' but F3G-1 development was eclipsed by another Goodyear's Corsair concept -- the simpler XF4G-1.

_________________________

[1] Production of the US reverse-engineered Walter motor -- the XRM-10A Shrike -- was to be carried out by the Airco-Davis-Bournonville company of New Jersey.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 18, 2017, 02:56:22 AM
Mixed-Power Corsairs - Part 2 -- Goodyear FG-7 and Rocket-Assisted FG-7R

Goodyear adopted the new bubble canopy for its FG-7 version of the original, non-folding wing Corsair and to the new, R-4360-powered F2G-1. Canopy aside, the FG-7 was equivalent to Vought's F4U-1D (with the latter's folding wings). Deliveries of the bubble-hooded FG-7 began in late July 1945 but the first USMC squadrons did not become operational until after VJ Day. [1]

(Top) An operational USMC FG-7A fighter in the summer of 1944. This Corsair had redeployed to the USAAF air field at Irumgawa (near Tokyo) at the height of the typhoon season.

As a side project to the XF3G-1, Goodyear also evolved a simpler rocket-assisted development of the FG-7 -- the FG-7R. This aircraft featured a belly-mounted Walter HWK 109-509.S2 rocket. As with the XF3G-1, the rocket's hydrazine/methanol fuel was carried in a tank behind the cockpit and hydrogen peroxide fuel was carried in two drop tanks (now on twin centre-section pylons).

The XFG-7 prototype (a FG-1 conversion) was modified to test the FG-7R configuration. Although not 'plumbed' for rocket propulsion, this test mule was ballasted to simulate the fuselage tank, carried twin drop tanks, and had a captured example of the HWK 109-509.S2 [2] mounted under the fuselage.

(Bottom) Prototype XFG-7 configured as an FG-7R (shown here without its rocket motor fairing). Note that the retracted tail wheel is fully enclosed to protect it from rocket blast.

One FG-1 was fitted with a fully-functioning HWK 109-509.S2 under its fuselage. This motor installation was ground-tested but accidental fuel mixing (due to a fuel line leaks) resulted in an explosion with destroyed the aircraft and its test rig. At this point, USN planning shifted to solid-fuel rockets for assisted take-off and plans to reverse-engineer the HWK 109-509 were abandoned.

_________________________

[1] A purely post-war development was the XFG-8 which was equivalent to the Vought F4U-4. No FG-8 was delivered but the Marine's cannon-armed AG-1 Corsair was a direct derivative of the XFG-8.

[2] Wright Field received an example of the Walter HWK 109-509.S2 from the British test establishment at RAE Farnborough. The German HWK 109-509.S2 had been developed for the Luftwaffe's Heimatschützer program.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 18, 2017, 02:59:29 AM
Mixed-Power Corsairs - Part 3 -- The Goodyear XF4G-1 'Turbo Corsair'

Goodyear modified an 'birdcage' Corsair to carry a Westinghouse 'Yankee' or Model 19XB turbojet beneath its fuselage. That aircraft -- FG-1, c/n 13041 -- began trials at NATC Patuxent River in January 1944. Inspired by the success of those trials, Goodyear began design work on auxiliary turbojet installations to function as boosters for the FG-7 Corsair.

The first 'Turbo Corsair' concept featured twin turbojet engines mounted on the wing tips. Designated XF4G-1 by the BuAer, this design was to be powered by the standard Pratt & Whitney R2800-8W radial boosted by two wing-mounted Westinghouse Model 9.5A turbojets. At 9.5-inches in diameter, the Model 9.5A was half the size of the jet engine trialled by the FG-1 in early 1944.

(Top) Goodyear XF4G-1 twin-jet 'Turbo Corsair' concept as submitted to the BuAer in March 1945.

The XF4G-1 concept was viewed by the BuAer as a low-drag approach to mixed-power but there were official concerns about the effects of asymmetrical thrust in the event of a turbojet engine failure. [1] Goodyear responded to these concerns with a revised 'Turbo Corsair' concept based more closely upon the FG-1 jet test bed.

The Goodyear XF4G-1A 'Turbo Corsair' mounted a single, larger Westinghouse Model 19XB-2B turbojet in a similar installation to the FG-1 test bed. Cited on the centreline near the centre of gravity, this installation eliminated officialdom's potential asymmetrical thrust concerns. Goodyear received a contract for a production line conversion of an FG-7 to full XF4G-1A standard.

Work on the XF4G-1 concept had convinced Goodyear designers that the Corsair could handle heavy loads mounted on its wing tips. Accordingly, wing tip fuel tanks were incorporated into the XF4G-1A design. Kerosene fuel for the turbojet was carried in these ejectable tip tanks. The XF4G-1A conversion first flew (with fixed tip tanks) from Akron Municipal Airport in early August 1945 before being transferred to NATC Pax River for USN trials.

_________________________

[1] Goodyear had anticipated this concern and attempted to allay asymmetry control fears by incorporating the enlarged tailplane of the more powerful F2G-1 Corsair.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 18, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
 :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 18, 2017, 03:02:15 AM
Mixed-Power Corsairs - Part 4 -- Post-War Goodyear 'Turbo Corsairs'

The XF5G-1 prototype was another FG-7A conversion to mixed power. Using standard inner wing pylons, twin Westinghouse J32 turbojets were installed. [1] This close-in engine arrangement, it was thought would get around any major asymmetrical thrust issues should a single turbojet fail in flight.

(Top) Twin-jet XF5G-1 prototype conversion as originally completed. (Note the 'short', FG-1-style vertical tail and rudder.)

Test mountings showed that standard pylon fittings would not suffice. The underwing mounts had to be considerably beefed up and extensively reprofiled ... which rather defeated the purpose of the exercise. The USN lost interest in the project and the XF5G-1 flew almost exclusively as an engine test bed platform.

For the XF6G-1 conversion, the wing tip-mounted engine arrangement of the XF4G-1 concept was revived. But, in place of turbojets, the XF6G-1 would mount twin Marquardt 20-inch ramjet engines. This combination flew in the summer of 1946. The XF6G-1 was fast with the Marquardt ramjets operating but cockpit noise levels were also dangerously high.

(Bottom) Ramjet XF6G-1 conversion on USN trials, NATC Patuxent River, early 1947.

In the fall, this modified FG-7A was delivered to NATC Patuxent River for comparison trials with a twin-engined Grumman F7F Tigercat fitted with a single Marquardt ramjet under its belly. Useful data on ramjet operation was gleaned from these trials but neither airframe was developed any further.

_________________________

[1] J32 was the post-war designation for Westinghouse's Model 9.5A turbojet engine. (The larger Model 19XB turbojet became the J30 in this post-war nomenclature.)

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on July 18, 2017, 03:26:44 AM
I love this mixed power Corsairs
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on July 18, 2017, 06:57:08 PM
You pulled off a minor miracle - you made the Buchón pretty! The Corsairs are great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on July 20, 2017, 07:21:27 PM
The Griffon Buchons are beautiful!! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on July 23, 2017, 08:27:45 AM
The Goodyear XF4G-1A 'Turbo Corsair'
Thanks Apophenia for your pleasant profile of a bubble-Corsair with the canopy moved backward. Let me close it moving the windscreen to the rear instead of the bubble to the front (XF11G)… and that creates also a nice twin-plane (F11G), easy to read, thanks again!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on July 23, 2017, 09:08:10 PM
Great work!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on July 23, 2017, 10:35:58 PM
Love the Corsairs!  Very nice, detailed work!   :)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 29, 2017, 04:20:23 AM
Following on with the Goodyear Corsairs ... but this time with a pair of RW FG-1 variants.

(Top) An early model FG-1. This fixed-wing fighter in 3-tone camouflage lacks a tailhook. Note also the short radio mast and its antenna attachment to the vertical fin (rather than the rudder top). The sliding hood is of the original 'flat type -- later 'birdcage' hoods were bulged for rearview mirrors (see below). This R-2800 powered aircraft had the usual 3-bladed Hamilton-Standard propeller.

(Bottom) A Corsair 'corncob' conversion. One of two FG-1 conversions by Pratt & Whitney to take the new R-4360 Wasp Major, a 28-cylinder 4-row radial. The first conversion was fitted with a prototype engine suited only for ground-testing. The second conversion (shown here) had a fully airworthy R-4360 for flight testing. The Wasp Major's engine mount and cowling is similar to that of later Goodyear F2G production fighters (although those aircraft had much flatter carb air intakes).

This conversion wears 2-tone camouflage and is in the process of having its national insignia repainted to match directive AN-I-9b of August 1943. At this time, bars have been added to the fuselage stars but the starboard underside wing insignia was still 'barless' (not sure about the state of the portside upper wing cocarde at this point).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 29, 2017, 04:54:16 AM
Sweet!

I've kicked around doing a corncob conversion to the Tamiya F4U-1, I've done a bit of mocking up,
and thought about getting the Special Hobby F2G-1 for the cowling, revised front fuselage etc., but
decided it was too expensive a proposition.


Well, scratch the above comments, went on evil-bay out of curiosity to see if any 1/48 SH F2G-1 were
on offer, and damned if the Accurate Miniatures boxing didn't show up in a combo deal with Accurate
Miniatures race-plane boxing of the Eduard P-39Q, both for $69.95 with free expedited shipping.
My fingers couldn't stop themselves.  :-[ ;D

- Oi, I received a shipping confirmation before the ebay transaction confirmation came through!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 29, 2017, 08:18:50 AM
The Odds of Modeling were in your favour today Jon!  :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 29, 2017, 09:25:11 AM
Yeah, couldn't resist as I had balked at the $45.00 price tag when it was new in '05.
So $10 bucks less 12 years on OK with me.

I guess I'll just have to build one of apo's bubble-topped 'regular' Corsairs with the left over
bits from the SH and Tamiya kits.
 ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 30, 2017, 02:15:30 AM
I guess I'll just have to build one of apo's bubble-topped 'regular' Corsairs with the left over
bits from the SH and Tamiya kits.
 ;D

Looking forward to that! So, actually, you'll almost be getting three buildable kits out of your evilBay investment  :D

More deviant Corsairs coming down the pike ... but first a quickie based on the Hughes H-1:

Hughes XP-34 'Harrier' -- the Hughes Aircraft XP-2 concept depicted in whif Material Division/Wright Field markings as winner of the 1935 Circular Letter X–603 pursuit competition.

The Hughes XP-2 was based closely upon the H-1 Racer. Like the Racer, the XP-2 was to be powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior radial -- chosen for its comparatively low frontal area. [1]

The US Army Air Corps issued Circular Letter X–603 for a new pursuit on 15 Jan 1935. By the end of April 1935, a team at Hughes had revised the H-1 design into a single-seat fighter to meet X-603. Compared with the Racer, the pursuit was of all-metal construction and had a longer-span, higher aspect ratio wing with a curved trailing edge. The cockpit canopy was raised and a rearview panel was let in to the rear fuselage.

As specified by X–603, the XP–2 (an internal Hughes designation standing for 'Experimental Pursuit, Model 2') was armed with two machine guns (one in each enlarged wing fillet). Top speed was to be 347 mph at 10,000 feet (against the Air Corps' desired 325 mph at that altitude). Endurance also exceeded requirements (at 5.67 hours against the asked for 3 hours). Service ceiling was to be 31,700 feet (1,700 feet more than requested). Rate of climb at sea level was 2,500 feet per minute (versus the 2,200 required).

The XP-2's 4 minute climb time to 10,000 feet fell between the desired and minimum accepted times.  Likewise, take off and landing to clear a 50 foot obstacle was slightly less than desired (541 feet vs 500 feet) but well short of the minimum distance of 1,500 feet.

But the Hughes design was deficient in several performance areas. X-603 listed a desired stalling speed of 60 mph with a maximum 65 mph. The XP-2 was expected to stall at 70.5 mph. Required flight path angle was 10°. The XP-2's path angle would be 17°.

By the closing date of 16 May 1936, sixteen pursuit designs had been offered to the Air Corps' Material Division. The Hughes XP-2 was assessed but the competition was won by a rival design by the Wedell-Williams Air Service Corporation, based on their Model 45 racer. Designated XP–34, the Wedell-Williams was to be powered by an R-1830 Twin Wasp -- the more powerful 'big brother' to the Hughes' R-1535 engine.

The RW XP-34 was never built -- Wedell-Williams was in financial trouble. That was moot. It had already become apparent that the performance of a service P-34 would be inferior to the new Seversky P-35 and Curtiss P-36 pursuits.

__________________________

[1] The service engine would be rated at 750 hp (whereas the H-1 Racer's engine had reached 900-to-1,000 hp through the use of then-new 100 octane fuel).

__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 30, 2017, 02:58:18 AM
Nice.  8)

Evidently the Hughes Racer was never actually designated as the 'H-1' by Odekirk and Hughes,
that number was added some time later. The actual 'H-1' was Hughes twin-engine entry to the
X-608 competition eventually won by Lockheed with the Model 22 (P-38).

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-SjtFmfH/0/63952396/L/H1_X608_01-L.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 30, 2017, 05:56:53 AM
Nice - any chance of a XP-2 in colour?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 01, 2017, 04:14:08 AM
Jon: Thanks for that. The actual H-1 is very tasty!

Nice - any chance of a XP-2 in colour?

Worth a go ... but now Jon has distracted me with that X-608 submission  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:07:44 AM
Berliner-Joyce Renaissance

Berliner-Joyce Aircraft Corp. had been formed in Feb 1929 by Henry Berliner and Captain Temple Nash Joyce (a former WWI Air Service fighter pilot). The firm was headquartered in Alexandria, VA with a factory at Dundalk, Maryland. The undercapitalized Berliner-Joyce Aircraft was absorbed in 1933 by North American Aviation, becoming that firm's B/J Aircraft Corp Division. In March 1933, B/J Aircraft was retitled as the General Aviation Mfg Corp.

Henry Berliner quit to found ERCO in 1933. In January 1934, Temp Joyce followed Berliner's example. He joined the sales department of the Bellanca Aircraft Co. By the outbreak of WW2 in Europe, Joyce was back in Dundalk, MA, heading the Zap Development Corporation (which promoted the 'Zap Flap' invented by former Berliner-Joyce engineer, Edward F. Zaparka). But the war in Europe suggested greater development opportunities to Captain Joyce.

Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics Co.

With Henry Berliner's blessings, Joyce reformed B/J as the Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics Co. This reborn Berliner-Joyce firm consisted of production facilities at Dundalk (alongside its subsidiary, Zap Development) and a design office/prototype assembly shop at the old B/J plant in Alexandria, VA. To that end, Joyce approached an old Berliner-Joyce customer, the US Navy for potential development contracts.

Joyce was relying in part on proximity. The 'new' B/J Alexandria facility was located on the Potomac -- just 63 miles upstream from the Naval Air Test Center (NATC) at NAS Patuxent River. Joyce had also been in contact with former employer Vought (now Vought-Sikorsky) which had accepted an offer for Berliner-Joyce to build revised wings fitted with Zap flaps and mid-chord ailerons for a Vought Kingfisher. The completed OS2U was then presented to the NATC for trials. The reborn Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics was on its way.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:08:43 AM

The Zap flapped Vought OS2U was not accepted for service by the NATC trials had been completely  successful. NATC (via the Bureau of Aeronautics) offered Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics a contract for design studies of unconventional aircraft. These concepts were for radical combat aircraft based upon the major components of existing service types. On behalf of Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics, Temp Joyce accepted the challenge.

Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics' first proposal to the NATC was for a 'Scout Fighter' (SF) based on components from the Brewster F2A-2 shipboard fighter then about to enter service. In this concept, the F2A's bulky radial engine was moved to the centre of the airframe. Rather than a long extension shaft leading to the nose (as in the Bell XFL-1), the 'SF' featured short extension shafts running out through the wings (which were fitted with full-span 'Zap Flaps' and mid-chord ailerons).

The first concept ('SF-1') retained the F2A's single-row Wright R-1820 engine. The second ('SF-2') adopted the smaller-diameter Pratt & Whitney R-1830 twin-row radial. In both designs, interconnected twin-bladed propellers were housed at mid-span leaving the nose completely free. The pilot would sit in the extensively glazed nose, resulting in a much smaller frontal area than the Brewster original. Navy issues were a lack of rear view for the pilot and a strong concern that the 'SF' types would prove to be tail heavy. A lengthened nose would add weight and drag to the design.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:09:21 AM

Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics defended its 'Scout Fighter' (SF) concept by pointing out that scouting rather than air combat would be the aircraft's main role. With the higher speed inherent in an aerodynamically cleaner design, the 'SF' could out-run most interceptors. Rear-view mirrors should be enough to let the pilot know who was behind him.

NATC/BuAer concerns about nose-heavyness was addressed in the next 'SF' incarnation - the SF-3. This concept was based on the airframe of the new Grumman F4F shipboard fighter. Components re-used were the horizontal tail and main undercarriage (albeit in a new tricycle arrangement). The wings would be modified to accept shafts for mid-span propellers and fitted with 'Zap Flaps' and mid-chord ailerons. Both R-1820 and R-1830 variants were offered.

To prove their concept, Berliner-Joyce offered to modify an F4F-3 with full-span 'Zap Flaps' and mid-chord spoiler-type ailerons. This modification, the firm argued, would result in superior low landing speeds without compromising manoeurabilty for both the 'SF-3' concept and the standard F4F fighter. The Navy was interested in the B/J proposal but the project stalled when Grumman insisted that no 'spare' F4Fs were available for modification.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:10:26 AM

While Grumman proved less than cooperative, the reverse was true for Temp Joyce's former employer, Vought. When the NATC asked Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics to turn its attention on design studies for unconventional aircraft to the XF4U Corsair, Vought quickly supplied drawings and technical information on their new fighter.

To act as a basis for comparison, B/J first developed a Douglas SBD Dauntless analogue employing Corsair airframe components and the Dauntless' Wright R-1820 radial. The objective was not to develop a new operational type but rather to provide a baseline study for more radical proposals.

The first design study submitted was dubbed the 'Semi-Prone SB' -- a 2-seat Scout Bomber concept. This aircraft featured the same drivetrain as the Bell XFL-1 Airabonita (including the Allison XV-1710-6 V-12 engine and nose propeller driven by extension shafts. The crew of two were grouped in the nose, the navigator-gunner being armed with twin .50-calibre machines on a flexible mount.

The 'Semi-Prone' in the description refered to the pilot's position during dives. In level flight, the pilot was to sit conventionally with a fine view through the bulbous glazed windscreen. When about to enter a dive, the pilot's seat would pivot complete with gun sight, main instrument panel, and joystick. In this semi-prone position, the pilot could reach a second set of rudder pedals to complete his controls. The object of the design exercise was a superior cockpit view combined with reduced chance of pilot 'black out' during recovery from a dive.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:11:10 AM

The second set of Berliner-Joyce concepts based on the Vought F4U were single-seaters. The first was the 'Prone-Pilot SB' concept. For this Scout-Bomber, the pilot lay prone for the entire mission -- the perceived advantage being a further reduced frontal area. The resulting higher speed was seen as sufficient justification for removing the second crew member and his defensive armament.

For comparison sake, a single-seater Scout-Bomber concept with a conventionally-positioned pilot was also drafted. The benefit here was superior all-around visibility and the option of heavy nose armament. This aircraft was expected to operate in the Scout-Bomber divebombing role while being capable of also flying as a shipboard interceptor.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2017, 03:12:37 AM

(This sequence starts here: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg129207#msg129207 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg129207#msg129207) )

Since the US Navy was not yet ready for a single-seat bomber, Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics returned to its 2-seat Scout-Bomber concept. This third set of 'SB' designs differed in abandoning the liquid-cooled Allison for a much more powerful engine -- the new four-row Pratt & Whitney R-3360 radial. [1] As in the early developments, this radial engine was buried in the fuselage and drove a nose propeller through an extension shaft.

At 2,300 hp, the Pratt & Whitney R-3660 was little more powerful than the Corsair's two-row R-2800. But the R-3660 had a much smaller diameter which better suited a mid-engined layout. After reviewing variations with semi-prone pilots, armament firing through a hollow prop shaft, and other options, the BuAer chose to focus on conventional pilot seating and twin sychronized .50-calibre machine guns mounted under the nose.

Too Late for Glory

Berliner-Joyce received a contract to produce a prototype as the XSFJ-1. This aircraft was built and assembled at B/J's Alexandria facility but progress was slow. There were also concerns that the Berliner-Joyce plant at Dundalk, MA, was too busy with subcontracted component work to handle production of their new design. Accordingly, series production was assigned to the Naval Aircraft Factory.

NAF undertook some detail redesign of the XSF-1 prior to initiating production. The most obvious change of the SFN-1A, as the production type was designated, was a completely revised canopy design. Gone were the XSF-1's individually-framed clear panels in favour of clear-blown Perspex canopy segments. The tail was also revised (NAF adopting the taller tail from the Goodyear-built F2G Corsair. Aside from enhancing manoeuvrability, the new lower rudder section also automatically deflected when flaps were selected to improve low-speed handling.

Berliner-Joyce Aeronautics received a contract to rebuild the XSF-1 as the XSF-2. This would involve bringing the prototype up to SFN-1A standards while also modifying the wings to demonstrate B/J's Zap Flaps and mid-chord spoiler ailerons. Unfortunately for Berliner-Joyce, WWII ended a month after this contract was issued. The contract was cancelled in early Sept 1945 before work had even begun on the XSF-2 modifications.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on August 03, 2017, 03:52:50 AM
(https://gbatemp.net/attachments/2078fff-jpg.36659/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 04, 2017, 01:46:24 AM
Well, I don't really know what to say....wow!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 04, 2017, 02:28:03 PM
Berliner-Joyce received a contract to produce a prototype as the XSFJ-1.
Wonderful! Thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 05, 2017, 03:13:07 AM
Thanks folks! Of course, they can't all be winner ;p  Ever see a whif in your mind's eye that seems highly promising but the rendered version smells up the room? This was one of those!

I started with the notion of a Bearcat competitor from Lockheed based on P-80 wings (which are of longer span but slightly less area). Seemed like a good idea but once scaled, the P-80 looked way too skinny. So, the P-80 fuselage had to be hugely enlarged to fit the R-2800. And that made the Lockheed canopy look flat and tiny ... and so on, and so on

Overall effect? Poo-ey! What a stinker ;p

_______________________

BTW: I don't have regular internet access right now so apologies in advance for posting in clumps.

_______________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 05, 2017, 03:16:42 AM

In the aftermath of Brexit, Britain's involvement in the 1960 European Free Trade Agreement is being discussed again. I've been working up a scenario in which the EFTA has more teeth and includes a Defence Committee (DefEFTA) aimed at procurement cooperation and commonality. While trying mash this scenario into something manageable, I've started some profiles ...

The first set springs from initial member states -- Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden,  Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- already having a limited degree of commonality in equipment.

EFTA Defence Committee Common Battle Tank -- The Centurion Upgrades

The DefEFTA's Common Battle Tank (CBT) focused on standardization through upgrades of existing Centurion vehicles. The CBT project also accommodated the coming Chieftain MBT through exchanges. Chieftain programme participants -- the UK, Sweden, and Switzerland -- arranged to divide their Centurion stocks between their reserve forces and neighbouring countries. Through these exchange, Norway received Centurions from Britain; Denmark increased its Centurion stocks by receiving ex-Swedish Strv 101s; and, eventually, Austria received ex-Swiss vehicles.

Under CBT, the Centurions would undergo two major upgrade phases. The first was Centurion 68 (the 1968 Centurion Upgrade Package). Centurion 68 consisted of equipment modernization, a modest armour protection upgrade, and a new powerplant -- the 700 hp Leyland L.60 diesel for Centurions upgraded in Britain, the 690 hp Scania 700 diesel for Swedish and Swiss upgrades.

(Top) Danish Panser 68, an example of the Swedish Centurion 68 upgrade. Note this vehicle's range-extending fuel drums and Madsen-Sætter flexible machine gun.

The second major Centurion upgrade was Cent Up 2k -- aka Centurion 2000. Cent Up 2k represented a more ambitious modernization programme than Centurion 68. The entire hull and turret was clad with Chobham composite armour (which also replaced the earlier steel armour skirts). The new standard powerplant was the 815 hp Scania 800 diesel match to a new David Brown transmission.

(Bottom) Austrian Pz2000, an example of the Swiss Cent Up 2k upgrade. Note the optional Swedish-style 'diesel armour' on its skirts and the SIG 710-4 flexible machine gun.

________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 05, 2017, 03:21:19 AM

A degree of existing commonality in existing equipment could also be found in EFTA members' use of Hawker Hunters as strike fighters. This would result in DefEFTA's  Strike Fighter Hunter Upgrade (SFHunt) programme (... which I'll cover later). Meanwhile, one outcome of the 1963 DefEFTA agreement on common defence procurement, was a contest for a completely new 'standard' strike fighter to replace the interim, upgraded Hawker Hunters.

The Common Strike Fighter (CSF) programme to replace the Hunter upgrades was the first DefEFTA competition for a complete aircraft system. This CSF contest was won by the Swedish Saab JA/AJ.37 Viggen powered by a 15,000 lbf (dry) Svenska Flygmotor RM10 Vaster -- a license-built Rolls-Royce RB.177 with a Swedish-designed afterburner. [1] 'First adopters' for the new Saab fighter were Sweden, Norway, the UK, and Switzerland.

After delivery of the Viggen, Norway's Hunters were donated to Portugal. Sweden's Hunters were divided between sales to Finland and donations to Portugal. Swiss Hunters were sold to Austria. Denmark retained its Hunters, never adopting the Viggen.

(Top) A Swiss Saab J.37 Viggen of the Flugwaffe's Überberwachungsgeschwader. CKD assembly in Switzerland by Flugwaffewerke FFA. Note Hunter-style drop tanks.

(Bottom) Co-produced BAC-Saab GR.1 Norseman [2] of the Royal Air Force. R-R RB.177-6 'Super Medway'.

_________________________

[1] Svenska Flygmotor did not normally assign names to its products. The RM10 Vaster was following Rolls-Royce practice of naming jet engines after major rivers.

[2] The translated name 'Thunderbolt' was initially proposed for British Viggens but was rejected by the RAF. Switzerland, like Norway, simply adopted the original Swedish name.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 05, 2017, 05:02:22 AM
Stinker? Mmm, don't know about that, kinda resembles a single-seat bubble-top evolution of the military version
of the Hawks-Miller HM-1.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7361/11875307836_4614be327a_b.jpg)

Which was of course a development of Time Flies:

(http://www.jitterbuzz.com/manfil/MAN_Feb_1937.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-99m5dhp/0/a1770561/L/Hawks-Miller_HM-1_Time_Flies-L.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 05, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
You were creative,great stuff!
Berliner-Joyce Brewster is by far my favorite !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 11, 2017, 05:23:21 AM
Ooo, Time Flies was gorgeous  :-*
__________________________________

DefEFTA's Strike Fighter Hunter Upgrade (SFHunt) programme

As mentioned earlier, EFTA member use of Hawker Hunters led to DefEFTA's Strike Fighter Hunter Upgrade (SFHunt) programme beginning in 1962. The object of SFHunt was not a standard, EFTA-wide Hunter 'mod' but rather shared information to achieve comparable performance in the strike fighter role. Initial adopters of SFHunt upgrades were Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Each participant nation in the SFHunt programme chose its own range of modifications and how to phase in those improvements. In Sweden, Saab handled Hunter upgrades. In Switzerland, it was Flugzeugwerke FFA. British Hunter upgrade work was divided between the Armstrong Whitworth and Gloster divisions of Hawker Siddeley Aviation Ltd.

The UK and Switzerland also cooperated on an engine change for SFHunt. RAF Hunters and selected Swiss airframes were fitted with the new Rolls-Royce RB.106 Tamar. This new turbojet produced 15,000 lbf dry and was intended as a 'drop-in' replacement for the Hunter's original Avon engine. Sweden opted out of the Tamar programme, retaining Avons for all of its upgraded Hunters.

(Bottom) A late-pattern 'SFHunt 90' of the Swiss Flugwaffe. Note Tamar tailpipe and the 'Sabrina reduction' (due to removal of two of the four original 30mm Aden guns).

SFHunt-standard Hunters would later serve with the air forces of other EFTA nations. Denmark got ex-RAF Tamar-powered Hunters. Other 'second hand' SFHunts were all Avon-powered -- Norway and Finland got ex-Swedish Hunters; Austria purchased early Swiss SFHunts; Portugal was donated ex-RAF (all from storage with minimal SFHunt mods).

(Top) A Luftstreitkräfte Hunter. This ex-Flugwaffe early-pattern SF Hunt is a hybrid. Avon-powered and retaining full cannon armament, this Austrian aircraft has since received the Swedish Ericsson SFHunt nose package. Note that a VHF antenna has been fitted to the fin but that this Hunter lacks the SFHunt RWR antennae fit.

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 11, 2017, 05:25:51 AM

Not all of DefEFTA's efforts towards common procurement were successful. In 1960, the new British government instructed the RAF and Royal Navy to proceed on more frugal fighter programs. The result was a 'go ahead' for supersonic developments of the diminutive Folland Gnat.

The RAF was able to slide sideways on this order, shifting the new Gnat onto its 1962 Air Staff Target 362 requirement. AST 362 was for an advanced supersonic jet trainer to replace the original Folland Gnat T1 as well as the Hawker Hunter T7. This resulted in the RAF accepting the Folland Fo.147T as its Super Gnat T.Mk.3 [1] Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT).

Quite reluctantly, the Royal Navy took a version of the supersonic Gnat - as the Folland Firefly F.Mk.1 shipboard fighter. The small size of the Firefly was ideal for below-decks stowage but other aspects were less desirable. The original Gnat's built-in gun armament was sacrificed for extra fuel and weight reduction. As a result, the Firefly could be armed with either an external gun pod on its belly mount or it could carry two Red Top AAMs ... but not both options at the same time.

(More to come on Gnat derivatives)

_________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 11, 2017, 06:18:51 AM
Among the new ones, my favorite is the supersonic Gnat/Firefly :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 12, 2017, 03:58:30 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 15, 2017, 06:24:56 AM
Grown-Up Gnat -- the Folland Fo.170 Mosquito Multi-Purpose Fighter Proposal

Teddy Petter penned one final fighter design as chief engineer of the Folland Aircraft Limited. Official resistance to Petter's earlier designs -- the Fo.147 fighter (twin Rolls-Royce RB.153 Stour turbofans); Fo.148 fighter/trainer (single RB 153-61); and Fo.149 advanced trainer (single RB.153-61) -- sprang from the cost and perceived complexity of their variable geometry wings. To answer those concerns, Petter designed a scaled-up Gnat without VG, the RB 153-61-powered Folland Fo.150.

Dubbed the Mosquito, the private venture Fo.150/1 was submitted to the RAF as a multi-purpose light fighter. With no outstanding requirement for such an aircraft, the RAF quickly declined. The same fate befell the Fo.150/2 Fulmar naval fighter submitted to the Royal Navy. Thus, in British service, the Folland Fo.150 proceeded no further than a mockup. Overseas, it would have more luck. [1] But time was up for Folland Aircraft. Firefly production ended in May 1967 after which Hamble became the Southampton MRO facility of new owners Hawker Siddeley ... who then dropped the Folland name.

Avro Type 774 Archon

A more ambitious project resulted in the Avro Archon. The Type 774 Archon intermediate-range interceptor sprang out of a serious of studies conducted by Avro in the late 1950s. It was concluded that mixed power was not a winning formula and that the base Avro 720 series [2] airframe was too small for the twin-engined interceptor desired by the Air Staff.

As Avro Type 720 development ended, a team of former Avro Canada employees under Jim Floyd arrived back in the UK accompanied by reams of data on the cancelled Canadian CF-105 Arrow. From this came three distinct Avro fighter proposals. The first was a direct British Avro Arrow derivative powered by two Rolls-Royce RB.106 Tamar turbojets. Despite earlier Air Staff interest in the Arrow, this proposal was not proceeded with due to cost.

The second was a 50% scale single-seater which was regarded as a replacement concept for the Type 726 light fighter. This second type would be powered by two 21-inch diameter RB.115 Teme turbojets; two reheated Bristol-Siddeley Orpheus turbojets; or a single, larger-diameter Rolls-Royce RB.153 Stour turbofan. [3]

The third Avro fighter concept was also a single-seater. This concept was a two-thirds scaled Arrow airframe with a range of powerplant options. The most radical modification of the original Arrow layout was powered by a single RB.168 Spey turbofan (or similarly-sized alternative powerplant). More directly derived from the Arrow was a twin-engined study with two Bristol-Siddeley BE.30-3 Zeus two-spool turbojets. It was this last study than proceeded as the Avro Type 774.

With Arrow technical data to hand, work on the Type 774 proceeded fairly quickly. Being scaled-down compared with the Arrow resulted in some design challenges. The wing was no longer thick enough to accommodate the main undercarriage. Frost adopted a solution proposed for an advanced Arrow derivative -- the undercarriage units would retract into permanently-fitted underwing fuel pods.

The belly weapons bay was also now comparatively shallow. This became an interchangeable bay which could be fitted with: multiple air-to-air rocket launcher rails; a ferry tank; or a long-range combined with an underbelly pylon (in an inverted 'T' form on intial deliveries, later an inverted 'Y') armed with two DH Firestreak or HSA Red Top guided missiles. The latter arrangement became the standard fit for the RAF's Avro Archon F.Mk.1 interceptors. These aircraft also had outer wing pylons which could carry BAC-Saab Seeker lightweight infra-red guided AAM. [4]

__________________________________

[1] HSA sold the entire Fo.150 project to Hindustan Aeronautics. Petter relocated to Bangalore to oversee production of his 'Fo.150/3' as the HAL HF-30 Machchhar. The 6,580 lbf RB 153-61 engine was also built in India as the HAL HJE-6500 Shakti.

[2] The rocket powered Avro Type 720 was followed by two mixed-power concepts -- the Avro 726 light fighter for the RAF and Avro 728 for the RN. The Bristol Orpheus-powered Type 727 was intended as a NATO ground attack fighter.

[3] The Rolls-Royce RB.153 Stour was a reduced-scale development of the RB.168 Spey turbofan.

[4] The Seeker was the British production version of the Saab Rb 33 Sökare IR missile.
__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on August 15, 2017, 06:39:10 AM
All these wonderful profiles have given me another 20+ years of work. I just abid adieu to my family as I walk into the modelling dungeon.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 15, 2017, 11:34:27 AM
Like the Archon, looks really good! :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on August 15, 2017, 11:47:54 AM
Thanks for the new profiles and explanations :-*
Is this pure imagination or History (of true projects)? Congratulations anyway.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 15, 2017, 10:57:11 PM
Like the Archon, looks really good! :smiley: :smiley:

+ 1! Gorgeous!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 16, 2017, 02:50:46 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 16, 2017, 06:51:30 AM
Thanks folks. When I find time, I will write up an alternative EFTA scenario.

Thanks for the new profiles and explanations :-*
Is this pure imagination or History (of true projects)? Congratulations anyway.

Tophe: Nary a real-world project to be seen in that post. It is true that Jim Floyd returned to the UK with a gang of Avro Canada engineers. But they worked on SSTs in HSA's Advanced Projects Group (leading to Concorde) not on fighter aircraft.

AFAIK, the unbuilt swing-wing Fo.148 was WEW Petter's last project for Folland. Petter lasted less that a year after Folland was absorbed by HSA. After that, he left aviation for good.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2017, 04:03:16 AM
Where cooperative DefEFTA projects could not be agreed upon, EFTA member states were free to 'go it alone'. Most such efforts were modest, resulting in light aircraft such as Portugal's updated OGMA Chipmunk II trainers and Sweden's Saab Supporter AOP/COIN aircraft. Britain, however, had a strong tradition of advanced fighter design which its industry was determined to preserve.

The HSA Hurricane and BAC Tempest [1] were two products of that determination. The Hurricane was a supersonic VTOL interceptor while the single-seat Tempest was a variable-geometry strike fighter. The two aircraft types would have very different fates.

The Hurricane evolved out of an earlier plenum-burning project, Hawker Siddeley's P.1154. The P.1154 suffered from shifting RN priorities for new carrier-based fighters. As a result, this design became too large and expensive to be a good match for RAF requirements. Rejigged as the Hurricane, the VTOL fighter 'fell between stools', suiting neither British service.

Although no other EFTA member expressed great interest in the Hurricane, prototypes were demonstrated in both Sweden and Switzerland. While at the Swiss test facility at Emmen [2] the third prototype Hurricane suffered an inflight fire in it starboard engine. Both Swiss test pilot and onboard HSA engineer ejected safely but the Hurricane P.03 was a write-off. The remaining prototypes flew from Boscombe Down with the A&AEE for some years but no production order for the Hurricane was ever issues.

The BAC Tempest was an attempt to take advantage of a British lead in variable-geometry wing technology. The design began as the P.45 advanced trainer/strike fighter concept. After review, it was concluded that the combined RAF requirement was unrealistic. From that point, the P.45 design was refined as a dedicated strike aircraft which emerged at the BAC Tempest. Despite being a 'go it alone' project, the Tempest would eventually serve in the Danish and Norwegian air forces as well as the RAF.

________________________________________

[1] The British government encouraged the use of 'heritage' design office names for aircraft, rather than those of conglomorate corporations. However, here, both Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation saw these projects as genuine group efforts rather than products of a particular design office.

[2]  The Emmen-based test unit is the Abteilung für Flugversuche,part of the Flugwaffe's Gruppe für Rüstungsdienste.

________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2017, 04:09:19 AM

EFTA Common Airlifter - the Short-Saab Sheffield/Svalbard Tactical Transport

In Feb 1959, Shorts' design office began work on a large transport aircraft based upon Bristol Britannia wings. Submitted for review as the Short SC.5/10, at the behest on the new coalition government, the Air Staff recommended that the concept be scaled-down and based on more modern components - those of the Vickers 803 Vanguard airliner. [1] Following those recommendations, a revised airlifter concept - the Short SC.5/22 [2] - was resubmitted to the Air Staff.

The SC.5/22 was accepted for RAF service as the Short Sheffield C.1 (with the first two production airframes doubling as development prototypes). The Sheffield first entered service with No.53 Sqn at Abingdon in November 1965. [3] Eventually, the Sheffield would replace all Blackburn Beverley, Handley-Page Hastings, and Bristol Britannias in RAF service.

(Top) A Short Sheffield C.1 'Heracles' (AR367) of No.53 Squadron at RAF Brize Norton in late 1967. Like all but the first two Sheffield C.1s, this aircraft is finished in tactical camouflage. 'Lo-viz' roundels and fin flashes would replace the semi-lustre national markings by mid-1969.

Note: Early-style horizontal inflight refuelling probe and absence of any tailcone ECM antennae.

Component production of the Sheffield was shared between Shorts (fuselage), Vickers-Armstrong (wings and nacelles), Saab (tailplane), and Dowty (undercarriage and propellers). Final assembly was by Shorts at Belfast and Saab at L . In Scandinavian service, the aircraft was known as Svalbard - a name adopted by its first Nordic customer, the Royal Norwegian Air Force. [4] Sweden followed (with their Tp 86 Svalbard) as did, eventually, Denmark.

(Bottom) One of three Danish Svalbards fitted out for Faroe Islands/Greenland missions. Flyvevåbnet Pennant B-679 is in well-worn 'overseas' colours ('Atlanterhavet' blue over pale grey with hi-viz 'Grønland' panels added). The crest of 721 Eskadrille appears on the forward fuselage on this Aalborg-based Svalbard.

Note: Large comms antenna on the tailfin (soon to be replaced) and the newly-added Terma A/S electro-optical turret beneath the nose.

__________________________________


[1] This was inspired partly by economic concerns, partly by the contemporary Franco-German Transall C160.

[2] The earliest revised SC.5 concepts used the Vanguard's large R-R Tyne turboprops (the SC.5/11 to SC.5/14 having 4 x Tynes, SC.5/15 to SC.5/18 having 2 x Tynes like the Transall). The later revisions, including the SC.5/22, switched to 4 x R-R Darts - a more economical engine.

[3] No.53 Sqn had flown Blackburn Beverleys at RAF Abingdon until disbanded in June 1963. The squadron was reformed on Sheffields in November 1965 before moving to Brize Norton in 1967.

[4] The Kongelige Norske Flyvåpen bought six Saab Svalbards, replacing eight C-119G Boxcars in service with 335 skvadron since 1956. One Norwegian Svalbard (BW-G, 'Brage') was written off in an accident, appropriately enough, on Svalbard. The replacement Svalbard was named 'Froya' but reused the BW-G skvadron kode.

__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 26, 2017, 04:43:46 AM
That Hurricane ends up looking a lot like a Mitsubishi T-1 when you combine the Phantom and Harrier like that.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 07, 2017, 06:18:35 AM
Beagle B226TP / Basset CC.Mk.4

The B226TP of May 1965 was a straightforward turboprop development of the Beagle B.206 Srs 3. [1] As a civilian executive transport, Beagle marketed this aircraft as the Beagle B226 Basset. When Beagle became part of the newly-formed DH Group, new marketing policies confused matters somewhat. Any military-related work by Beagle was now to be marketed under the Blackburn Aircraft name. One result was that although the aircraft had entered RAF service as the Basset CC.Mk.4, [2] such military models were marketed internationally as the Blackburn B226 Beagle!

Ultimately, the B226TP had more success in the commercial realm but military models included: light transports, multi-engined trainers, maritime surveillance, and overland surveillance-reconnaissance types (the latter two models sporting grotesquely-large belly radomes for search radar antennae).

(Bottom) A Basset CC.Mk.4 'air taxi' newly delivered to the RAF

Beagle B.236/Blackburn B236 Boarhound

The B236 Boarhound saw its origins in the ambitious Beagle B.212 (2) project of 1964 for a counter-insurgency derivative of the proposed B.212 (1) - a T-tailled, turboprop feederliner. Neither project saw the light of day as the realities of Beagle Aircraft's financial constraints kicked in.  Rather than abandon the concept completely, Beagle Chief Designer Tom Carroll, DFC, adapted the 2-seat [3] COIN aircraft concept to the B.206R (RAF Basset CC.Mk.1) airframe.

The B236 was a hybrid of Basset and B.206S (B.206 Srs 2) components with a completely new forward fuselage and the turboprop nacelles of the B226. The prototype Boarhound emerged with an RAF-supplied cockpit canopy (from a Meteor NF.11 fighter) and Canadian-built PT6A-3 engines. For the 1965 Farnborough Air Show, those engines were replaced with Napier-assembled NTP-6A Rapier turboprops and the B236 prototype was fitted with four wing pylons.

(Top) The B236 Boarhound prototype as it appeared at Farnborough 1965. (The Beagle logo on the nose was removed before the aircraft was returned to Boscombe Down for further testing.)

The B236 prototype was the only Boarhound completed by Beagle Aircraft. Everything changed with the reorganization under the new DH Group. It was decided that Beagle should concentrate on civil types while all of Beagle's military work would be transferred to DH Group affiliate, Blackburn Aircraft. Shoreham would continue to supply rear fuselages and other components while Boulton and Paul would build wings and tailplanes at Wolverhampton but final assembly would take place at Brough.

The prototype was also the only Boarhound accepted by the RAF. A revised MoD policy shifted all propeller-driven COIN from the RAF to the British Army or Royal Marines. All series Blackburn Boarhounds were finished in Army green upper surfaces with 'lo-viz' markings. Series aircraft also featured one-piece clear-blown canopies, wingtip tanks, and a stronger B226 undercarriage.

_________________________________________

[1] Note that the 'period' in Beagle designations was eliminated in the reorganization of 1965.

[2] The Basset CC.Mk.1s were the RAF's original 22 Beagle aircraft. The Basset CC.Mk.2 was a single Beagle B.206S loaned to the RAF for comparison purposes. The Basset CC.Mk.3 designation was reserved for a planned purchase of the Beagle B.206 Srs 3 (that contract then being revised to cover an equal number of Rapier-powered Basset CC.Mk.4s instead).

[3] The cockpit arrangement was revised for the production-model Blackburn B236. The Boarhound prototype's ugly Meteor 'hood' was replaced by a shorter, one-piece canopy. In the process, a central 'jumpseat' between the pilot and weapon operator's positions was eliminated.

_________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 12, 2017, 11:13:38 AM
Sorry, I did not know the source well enough to appreciate your transformation... But thanks to have mentioned the source:
development of the Beagle B.206 Srs 3.
Then I asked Google to show me this source (like https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8185/8398242704_8b4c5f05c2_b.jpg ) and now I like your transformation, thanks! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 12, 2017, 04:08:02 PM
The Boarhound would look pretty good with a proper bubble canopy. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 13, 2017, 06:06:40 AM

Thanks folks. Tophe ... that was the exact photo that I took my rear fuselage decking from

Now, a quick break from the EFTA thread. Ages and ages ago, von hitchofen2 asked for an Israeli Bloch MB 155 and, after a jog to memory, here it is:
_______________________________________________________

Israeli Blochs - Société Anonyme des Avions Marcel Bloch Fighters in Kheil Ha'Avir Service

In late 1947, the French firm SAAMB (la Société Anonyme des Avions Marcel Bloch) delivered a range of reconditioned fighters to Israel. All were refurbished with German avionics from Luftwaffe dumps and fitted with tailwheels (from Ar 196Bs) These aircraft were primarily Bloch MB 155 fighters - known as the Pattish (Hammer) in Israeli service - with a handful of SAAMB MB 155T dual-control trainers.

The MB 155Ts - known as the Gur-aryeh (Lion Cub) - were 2-seat trainers based on rebuilt ex-Vichy MB 151/MB 152 airframes fitted with MB 155 powerplants and cowlings. [2] The Gur-aryeh was not popular in Israeli service - it was short on range and had been delivered without radio transmitters - but the MB 155T made an ideal transitional trainer on to MB 155 fighters.

(Top) An MB 155T Gur-aryeh freshly transferred to 107 OTU at Ramat David, summer 1949. This Gur-aryeh still wears tail-stripes and fuselage band from its time with 101 Tayeset but the individual aircraft serial has been scrubbed. Note that the wings roundels have been repainted but the non-standard, factory-applied fuselage roundel has yet to be resprayed.

The MB 155 Pattish was more popular with Kheil Ha'Avir pilots. Its short-barrelled British Hispano Mk.V cannons [2] had greater range than the Avia S.199's Mauser guns of the same calibre. As a result, the Pattish were employed mainly for ground strafing, freeing up the rarer Spitfires for the top cover role.

(Bottom) MB 155 Pattish of the 101 Tayeset at Ekron in June 1948. '104.ד' is in near-pristine condition (with full squadron markings yet to be applied). The Pattish were unique among 101 Tayeset fighters in not having red spinners. The MB 155's off-centre engine mounting made a 'Spinnerspiral' spinner particularly effective at confusing the aim of enemy ground forces.

_________________________________


[1] The SAAMB MB 155T was based loosely on an Italian dual-control conversion of captured MB 151s.

[2] The Pattish was armed with twin 20 mm cannons and two 7.92 mm MAC Mle 1936/39 machine-guns. The MACs were guns bored out for German use during the Occupation. Most MB 155Ts were armed with two wing-mounted machine guns although some were delivered without armament.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 13, 2017, 06:11:09 AM
... which inspired this:
_________________________________

Dual-Control Blochs

The MB 159 Ins 2 was a conversion trainer for the Bloch MB 151-155 series fighters. Initial MB 159 Ins 2 were conversions from early-production MB 151 fighters. These aircraft had an instructor's cockpit inserted in the rear fuselage displacing the main fuel tank. [1] Some aircraft were fitted with sliding hoods for the instructor, others had open rear cockpits.

(Top) A captured Bloch MB 159 Ins 2 in service with the Regia Aeronautica as an MB 159 dc (Doppio Commando). [2] This was originally an open-cockpit Ins 2. The rear cockpit side 'flaps' (and revised antenna arrangement) were part of a minor refurbishment program by OMI Reggiane to suit the Bloch trainers to Italian service.

Later-production MB 159 Ins 2 models (known as the MB 159B T2 by Vichy authorities) [3] omitted the fighter's raised rear fuselage decking. The instructor's cockpit was fitted with a sliding hood behind which was a new, glazed 'turtle-deck' fairing.

(Bottom) An MB 159 Ins 2 newly refurbished for Vichy use as an MB 159 T2. Note that this aircraft is fitted with the back-up ring-and-bead sight but that its reflector sight has been removed.

_________________________________


[1] MB 159 Ins 2 fuel tankage was divided between multiple tanks - in the former gun bays, centre fuselage, and a small tank integral with the instructor's seat. Nevertheless, much-shortened range was an operational limitation for the MB 159 Ins 2.

[2] Also sometimes referred to simply as the 'Bloch Biposto', Italian sources most often refer to the 'MB 159 dc' (or 'MB 159 DC').

[3] The Armée de l'Air 'Ins' was for Instruction (for conversion trainer).  It is not clear why Vichy chose the 'T' designator. French intermediate trainers were normally given an 'ET' for Entrainement designation. Vichy officials either shortened that 'ET' designator or, more likely, applied a 'T' for Travail (General Purpose) designation to mislead their German overseers.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 14, 2017, 12:31:02 AM
I think I have never seen a tandem-seat Bloch of the 150 series, are you the inventor of it? :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 14, 2017, 02:51:50 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 15, 2017, 04:21:07 AM
I think I have never seen a tandem-seat Bloch of the 150 series, are you the inventor of it? :smiley:

Sssh, cela devrait rester confidentiel ... même Marcel Bloch n'a jamais entendu parler des MB 150s à deux places!

Hispano-Powered Bloch Fighters - the SO 154/MB 154B

The Vichy regime faced an on-going shortage of Gnome-Rhône engines for its Bloch fighters. The Bloch MB 154 was a still-born Wright Cyclone-powered MB 152 proposal. After the Armistice, stocks of HS 12Y powerplants were available. It was decided to complete MB 155 components as Hispano-powered MB 154Bs (in the Vichy designation style).

The redesign resulted in a radically different-looking fighter. Besides powerplant, the MB 154B differed from the MB 155 in having its cockpit moved even further aft to accommodate a Hispano-Suiza 20 mm moteur-canon. The engine installation and much of the cowling were taken from the rival Dewoitine D.520 fighter (as was the tailwheel - specified by the Germans to replace the typical Bloch fighter tailskid).

By agreement, the protoype was delivered to German authorities as the SNCASO SO 154 V1. [1] The Germans were interested in this aircraft as a potential advanced fighter-trainer. The prototype was fitted with an early-model HS 12Ycrs engine and a refurbished HS-404 cannon. [2] Performance suffered according ... which was possibly the French technicians' purpose in choosing somewhat antiquated equipment for the SO 154 prototype.

(Top) The prototype SO 154 V1 as delivered to German Occupation Authorities after 'Germanization' at Bordeaux-Aéronautique. Note that, at this stage, the prototype retains its French R/T gear but a German gunsight has been fitted. The unpainted cowling has yet to receive a coat of RLM 04 recognition yellow but Rechlin test codes have been applied prior to the flight to Germany.

The indifferent performance of the SO 154 V1 ensured that the Germans quickly lost interest in the project and released the SO 154 for exclusive Vichy use. The prototype remained at Rechlin but the ultimate fate of SO 154 V1 is unrecorded.

The Bloch MB 154B (as the SO 154 was known to Vichy) was to have been a 'heavy fighter' armed with three 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS-404 cannons - one as a moteur-canon and two wing-mounted guns. That plan was thwarted by a shortage of 20 mm guns. Instead, first series MB 154Bs were delivered with their wing cannon positions blanked off and two MAC machine guns mounted outboard. Second series fighters had a moteur-canon with four wing-mounted machine guns. All MB 154Bs were powered by the available HS 12Y-31 engines but the planned MB 154D [3] with a more powerful HS 12Y-45 never came to fruition.

(Bottom) A Vichy Bloch MB 154B of Groupe de Chasse II/5 in Morocco. The 'Hispano Bloch' fighters joined Hawk 75As of GC II/5 at Casablanca before redeploying as a bomber escort flight temporarily based  at Médiouna airfield. This MB 154B never received an individual aircraft number - it was lost returning from a 24 Sept 1940 raid on Gibraltar (probably due to damage from anti-aircraft fire).

After December 1940, GC II/5 was able to standardize on Curtiss H75As. All remaining MB 154Bs in North Africa were reassigned to GC II/3 at Oran where they served alongside Dewoitine D.520s. By 1943, the surviving MB 154Bs [4] had been transferred to Marrakech - where most were destroyed on the ground by strafing US Navy F4F-4 Wildcats during Operation Torch.

_________________________________


[1] To the Nazis, Marcel Bloch was an 'undesirable' and they would not apply his Ashkenazic surname to aircraft ordered for the Luftwaffe. The German authorities encouraged the Vichy regime to also adopt SNCASO designations but 'MB' designations remained in common use (with 'Sud-Ouest' regarded as interchangeable with 'Bloch').

[2] In all probability, the SO 154 V1's engine and armament combination originated with a retired or wrecked Dewoitine D.510 fighter.

[3] No 'MB 154C' sub-style designation was ever applied, probably to avoid confusion with the Armee de l'Air de Vichy's C1 (Chasse, Monoplace) suffix designator.

[4] Other than test airframes, no Bloch MB 154Bs served in Metropolitan France.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 15, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
Beatiful in-line Bloch fighters! :-* (even if this is the bad side, sorry...) ??? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 15, 2017, 06:14:26 PM
The 154's look good! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 16, 2017, 03:19:43 AM
Thanks folks. Tophe: Sorry, more "bad side" to come after this one  ;)

Bloch MB 151-At - the Accidental Assault Variant

Several 'MB' fighter variants were forced upon Bloch by circumstances out of the firm's control. By early 1940, airframe production was outstripping the supply of vital components. Bloch could do nothing about a shortage of Gnome-Rhône engines but MAC machine guns could be substituted for rare HS-404 cannons. The shortage of Ratier propellers, Bloch decided to tackle head-on.

Marcel Bloch had first made his reputation with the 1915 Éclair propeller. [1] In light of the difficulties experienced obtaining sufficient Ratier airscrews, it was decided to restart the Société des Hélices Éclair. Established at Châteauroux in central France, Éclair would first produce propellers for the MB 151/152 fighters. These differed from the variable-pitch Ratier propellers primarily in having wooden 'paddle' blades.

The heavier Éclair propellers had a slightly deleterious effect on performance - especially climb rate. This prompted the ad hoc development of a new sub-type. Available Ratier propellers went to unfinished MB 152s while idle MB 151s were completed with Éclair units to create a new ground-attack variant - the MB 151-At (for Assaut). These airframes were equipped with light-bomb racks under their wings and provided with a greater degree of armour protection (including externally-fitted armour-glass windscreens).

(Top) A Bloch MB 151-At ground attack aircraft of the newly-formed GAt I/4 at Sedan. (Note Société des Hélices Éclair logo on rudder.)

The Nose Knows - Alternative Radial Engines for Bloch Fighters

The on-going supply shortage of Gnome-Rhône 14N radials led Bloch to seek out alternatives. The most extreme outcome was the HS 12Y-powered MB 154B. But, following an Armée de l'Air directive, SNCASO design staff also examined potential foreign engines. Four candidate engines were examined - the British Bristol Taurus and Hercules and US Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp 14-cylinder radials, and the Wright Cyclone 9-cylinder radial. The  14-cylinder variants were designated MB 153 while the Cyclone-powered variant was to be the MB 154.

Neither of the Bristol options were pursued and, as we've already seen, the Cyclone-powered MB 154 was later abandoned. Thought more promising was the Twin Wasp-powered MB 153 variant since that engine was already in Armée de l'Air service (with the Curtiss Hawk 75A and Martin 167F bomber). An MB 152 [1] was converted to take the Pratt & Whitney radial (in a cowling similar to that of the MB 176 reconnaissance bomber). The production model MB 153 C1 was to be based on the MB 155 airframe. None of the production MB 153s was delivered to the Armée de l'Air. MB 153 C1 No.002 was delivered in a semi-completed form to the German Occupation Authorities but was never flown.


_________________________________


[1] In the original Société des Hélices Éclair, Bloch had partnered with Henry Potez.


[1] Sources vary as to whether No.434 was originally an MB 152 or an MB 151 model. SAAMB MB 155T was based loosely on an Italian dual-control conversion of captured MB 151s.

[2] The Pattish was armed with twin 20 mm cannons and two 7.92 mm MAC Mle 1936/39 machine-guns. The MACs were guns bored out for German use during the Occupation. Most MB 155Ts were armed with two wing-mounted machine guns although some were delivered without armament.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: von hitchofen2 on September 16, 2017, 11:21:25 PM
snip!

 8) :smiley:

Excellent work!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2017, 04:51:54 AM
Cheers! Here's the final (?) installment on the Bloch fighters ...

Bloch Fighters and l’Escadrille de la Légion des Volontaires Français

Another Bloch fighter engine alternative came from an unexpected source for an equally unexpected customer. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union, a French unit was recruited to fight on the Eastern Front - the Légion des Volontaires Français (LVF). [1] This unit had a small air arm - dubbed l’Escadrille de la LVF - which was initially equipped with Potez 63.11 reconnaissance bombers supplied by Vichy. It was later decided to establish a fighter flight as well.

Although ideologically sympathetic, Marshal Pétain was uneasy about French volunteers serving in German uniforms. The Vichy regime was even unhappier about been asked to fund the purchase of Bf 109s or other German fighter aircraft for the l’Escadrille de la LVF. Instead, it was proposed that the German Occupation Authorities provide a small number of BMW 801 radials to power a revived MB 155 derivative. This was agreed to.

The SNCASO SO 158 - A Bloch By Any Other Name

The resulting fighter would emerge as the SNCASO SO 158. Aft of its firewall, the SO 158 airframe most resembled that of the Vichy Hispano-powered MB 154B (the aft-positioned cockpit helping to offset the weight of the German engine). Power was provided by early-model BMW 801C radials - which would prove a constant source of problems. Nevertheless, the SO 158 contract could be completed quickly thanks to tooling available at Châteauroux for the earlier MB 154B.

(Top) The prototype Sud-Ouest SO 158 V1 as unveiled at Châteauroux in late May 1942. Note the Vichy markings and French radio-transmitter antennae fit.

As it happens the SO 158 did not enter service with l’Escadrille de la LVF until after Vichy France was finally occupied by the Germans. This aggressive action by erstwhile 'allies' seems not to have lessened the ideological furvor of members of the LVF. But it did leave the Escadrille de la LVF with a fighter aircraft which could not be readily supported (the Châteauroux factory was already being retooled to produce German-designed airframes).

Into action on the Front de l'Est

Initially, the Sud-Ouest fighters acted as escorts for LVF Potez 63.11s flying light bomber missions. But attrition was high for the Potez on the Eastern Front and new tactics were needed. It was decided to employ the SO 158As as fighter-bombers. The aircraft were fitted with light bomb racks but their main ground-attack weapons would be their hard-hitting 20 mm HS-404 cannon (these weapons were found to be capable of even knocking out Soviet tanks - if hit from the rear quarter).

The Escadrille de la LVF quickly found itself short of HS-404 spares and French 20 mm ammunition. To address this problem, the small SO 158A fleet was divided in two. Half of the aircraft would retain the ground-attack role - complete with bomb racks and HS-404 cannons. The other half would perform a top-cover function. These aircraft would be stripped of bomb racks and re-armed with German MG15/20 cannons which were seen as adequate for the air-to-air role.

(Bottom) Operational SNCASO SO 158A in full Escadrille de la LVF markings. [1] The former 'Deux noirs' has been taken over as the Chef de section's mount. Note that this escort fighter has been fitted with MG15/20 guns but, for now, retains its wing bomb racks.

The SO 158A division of labour worked well but the Escadrille de la LVF fighters had a poor availability rate - suffering from a combination of appallingly crude field conditions, long supply lines, a shortage of spares, and - most of all - chronic overheating problems with their early-model BMW 801C engines. By the Autumn of 1943, the writing was on the wall. The SO 158As were quickly becoming worn out and the Escadrille de la LVF needed replacement fighters. [2]

_________________________________

[1]  The wing Balkankreuze are identical to Luftwaffe markings but note the Escadrille de la LVF fuselage Croix bleue and other markings. This cross was in RLM 24 Dunkelblau with a superimposed Vichy roundel.

On the tailfin is the LVF's symbol in French national colours with a double-headed francisque in the centre. (Originally a Vichy régime symbol, the LVF used the francisque as its equivalent of a fasces or 'Croix gammée'.) A second francisque symbol is painted on the cowling - in this case, the badge of the Escadrille itself.

[2] With no suitable French fighters available, the obvious replacement for the SO 158A was the German Fw 190A. Instead, the Escadrille de la LVF received well-worn Bf 109s. They too were worn out but it was a moot point - on 01 Sept 1994, the LVF was disbanded and its personnel absorbed by the Waffen-Grenadier-Brigade der SS 'Charlemagne'.

_________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 19, 2017, 09:31:17 AM
Looks good with the 190 cowl. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 20, 2017, 04:19:17 AM
Cheers Old Wombat. The SO 158 cowling is a bit of a mash-up. It has the armoured nose ring and spinner of the Fw 190A combined with the sides of the Ju-88G cowling (with exhausts being a mixture of the two types. ... Now, back to the European Free Trade Agreement Defence thread:

Blackburn's B225 Bullfinch Intermediate Trainer

As previously noted, under the British government's aero-industry rationalization programme, an emphasis was placed on separating civil from military products. One result was Beagle military designs and their derivatives being promoted under the Blackburn name. Thus, the civil B121 Pup appeared under the Beagle banner while the military B125 Bulldog trainer was a Blackburn product.

Blackburn began to come into its own again with the B236 Boarhound COIN aircraft. A similar transmogrification occured with the Blackburn B225 Bullfinch intermediate trainer. Like the Bulldog, the Bullfinch sprang from Beagle's original B.121M Bullpup studies. It adopted the retractable undercarriage planned as a B125 option but Blackburn went a step further.

A slender, tandem-seat fuselage was mated with B125 tailplane and wings. [1] There was also a considerable increase in power with installation of a 240 hp Blackburn 6BGS Botha six-cylinder engine (with power eventually being increased to 300 hp for take-off in the B225 Srs.4). [2] The B225 Bullfinch would serve with the RAF as well as being exported Sweden. A turboprop derivative - the B225TP - was considered as one stage but this was eclipsed by the appearance of the Pilatus-Short PC-7.

Hunting's Revived Emphasis - Jet Trainers

Hunting Engineering turned most of its incomplete civil transport design work over to HSA. Under government financial support guidelines, Hunting was to concentrate on military aircraft. The first new project was the 'Super Provost' project - aimed at replacing Hunting Percival Jet Provosts with an evolved type.

The outcome of the 'Super Provost' studies was initially known as the Hunting Headmaster. Differing from the Jet Provost mainly in its tandem seating, this type entered RAF service as the Hunting Master T.Mk.1 - and that shortened name stuck. Although a go-it-alone British project, the Master would later also be assembled under license in Switzerland by FFA for the Flugwaffe.

A related type to replace export Strikemasters was the Hunting Huntress (with extra fuel tankage in a covered-over rear cockpit) [3] and the more refined (and successful) single-seat Huntmaster. For both types, gun armament consisted of an optional belly pod for an Aden cannon (25 mm or 30 mm calibre) or twin wing pylon machine gun pods. [4] Another single-seat export variant - the Hunting Hyena - featured a built-in gun armament of twin 25 mm Adens. The Hyena featured enlarged wingtip tanks to replace fuselage fuel tankage lost to ammunition stowage.
______________________________

[1] The narrower fuselage resulted in a comparative reduction in wingspan to 9.05 metres.

[2] This was Blackburn Aero Engines' version of the Franklin 6AGS. Rights to the Franklin line had been bought from Aero Industries in 1961. Franklin tooling was transferred from the US to Brough in 1963.

[3] Although the rear cockpit was 'plated over', the Huntress fuselage followed the 'bulged' fuselage profile of the twin-seat Master.

[4] The standard pod was armed with twin 7.62mm SIG 710-6F machine guns. Optional pods were armed with non-EFTA machine guns; a single 15 mm Besa 2 heavy machine gun; or a 20 mm Madsen cannon.

______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 21, 2017, 11:57:42 AM
Hunting's Revived Emphasis - Jet Trainers
The outcome of the 'Super Provost' studies was initially known as the Hunting Headmaster. Differing from the Jet Provost mainly in its tandem seating, this type entered RAF service as the Hunting Master T.Mk.1.
I love your Master imaginative aircraft! :-*
The only problem I have is the name, it is like a Master aircraft made by a Master in design (yourself)! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 22, 2017, 04:51:54 AM

EFTA Top Cover - Guarding the GIUK Gap

Iceland held EFTA 'Associate Member' status from the outset of the organization. In Jan 1969 -  through sponsorship by Norway and the UK - Iceland becomes a full member. Thereafter, by agreement within the DefEFTA Council, air defence duties for Iceland were assumed by the air forces of Britain, Norway, and Denmark. This also served to partially fulfill a NATO requirement to monitor the 'Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap'.

When the 'GIUK Gap' deployments began, the RAF relied on Avro Archon interceptors, the Danes on Saab J 35 Drakens and the Norwegians on J 135 Super Drakens. Responsibility for the air defence of Iceland was passed between the three countries on a rotating basis. On occasion, however, fighters from two or more of these air forces were detached to Keflavik airbase for joint exercises.

Aging Avros - The Late-Version Type 774G Archon Interceptors

Due to the lack of a suitable replacement, updated Avro Type 774 Archons served on later in RAF service than expected. The penultimate update [2] was the Archon F.Mk.4A which could be distinguished from the F.Mk.3 primarily by their extended ECM tail 'stingers'. Less obvious were the uprated Bristol-Siddeley BE.30-16 Zeus turbofans and improved GEC-Ferranti AI 22B Blue Wolf radar inside the F.Mk.3-style ogival radome.

(Top) A Keflavik-based Archon in all-over 'GIUK Grey' with 'lo-viz' national markings. [1] Squadron markings have been obscured by special 'Red Force' exercise colours. Despite being on exercise, this F.Mk.4A is armed to the teeth! On the twin belly mounts are DH Firestreak Mk.3B AAMs. On the wing pylons, HSA Red Top NG missiles are on the inboard position while BAC-Saab Seeker short-range 'dog-fight' missiles occupy the outboard pylons. [3]


Super Swede - The Saab JA 135 Super Draken

The Saab JA 135 Super Draken was an incremental improvement upon the original J 35F-model Draken. The JA 135 (an export designation) had a higher-power Volvo Flygmotor RM7 engine - a 16,500 lbf (dry) Rolls-Royce RB.106-206 Tamar with Swedish afterburner - replacing the Draken's RM6C (Avon 300). Visually, the new fighter could be differentiated from the old by its repositioned cockpit (with its Viggen-type canopy) and larger nose radome. [4]

(Bottom) A Saab JA 135 Super Draken of 338 Skvadron, Luftforsvaret at Kevlavik. [5] Note the 338 Skv checkerboard band applied around nose and along the drop tank.

Like the J 35F model Draken, the Super Draken carried a single 30 mm Aden cannon in its starboard wing. Other improvements included a larger Terma-Erisson IR ball sensor (mounted in front of the cockpit) and a new Saab RS 135 ejection seat. Later Swedish Air Force J 35N Super Drakens introduced a slightly 'humped' dorsal spine to increase internal fuel supply. A similar model - the J 135D - eventually replaced the Danes original J 35F Drakens. [6]

__________________________________

[1] The monochrome 'GIUK Grey' would later be replaced with two-tone 'Air Superiority Grey' on all remaining Archon F.Mk.4A and '4Bs.

[2] The Archon F.Mk.4B (Avro Type 774H) was essentially an F.Mk.2B airframe uprated to '4A standards with slight improvements. A visual clue for this Mark was the introduction of an IRST 'ball' for the first time. That IR sensor was a variation on the Terma-Ericsson N75 'ball' fitted to the Super Draken (replacing the licensed Hughes N71 aka AN/AAR-4 in its underfuselage fairing fitted on the J 35F).

[3] These outboard pylons appeared on the Archon F.Mk.3, replacing the F.Mk.2's launcher rails mounted the outboard sides of their fuel/undercarriage pods.

[4] This accommodated the new Saab PS-04/A radar set (intended as a direct replacement for the J 35F's licensed PS-03/A, the PS-04/A ende up with a larger diameter scanner).

[5] The home base of 338 Skvadron is Ørland hovedflystasjon under 138 Luftving.

[6] The J 135D lost its gun armament and introduced wingtip launch rails for Saab Rb 33 Ssökare (Seeker) short-tange AAMs. Main armament were two DH Firebrand Mk.1A medium-range AAMs.

__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on September 22, 2017, 12:36:25 PM
Aging Avros - The Late-Version Type 774G Archon Interceptors
Due to the lack of a suitable replacement, updated Avro Type 774 Archons served on later in RAF service than expected. The penultimate update [2] was the Archon F.Mk.4A
I love your Archon! :-*
but I did not recognize this shape. I asked Google and it told me from https://www.aviationsmilitaires.net/v2/base/view/Model/2110.html (https://www.aviationsmilitaires.net/v2/base/view/Model/2110.html) that the Avro 774 is similar to the Shakleton 4-engined slow patrol airplane. I prefer your one! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 27, 2017, 04:47:57 AM
Well done Tophe! I could never find any info on a 'Real World' Avro 774  :D

'Planes from Portugal - Projetos do Porto

The Corporação Aeronáutica do Porto (CAP or simply 'Porto') had its origins in the British Auster lineage. When the British Government bought Beagle in 1964, a product rationalization was initiated. Work continued at the Rearsby plant on Beagle civilian types but the future of the Shoreham plant was less obvious to planners at DH Group (the new management overseers). The Auster brand name remained an asset but its product line had become decidedly passé.

On forming, Beagle had seen a number of Auster types being produced under license in Portugal by government-owned Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronáutico (OGMA) outside Lisbon. Since Portugal was an EFTA member in need of financial assistance. The British Government decided to make a 'gift' of the Auster name and tooling to the Portuguese Government. Since the object of this exercise was to broaden the Portuguese manufacturing sector, one stipulation was that the military-controlled OGMA should not be the producer of future Portuguese Austers. [1]

After a brief survey, the Portuguese Government concluded that the best location for this new manufacturing business was the northern city of Porto (often 'Oporto' in English). Under the financial assistance agreement, Britain would ship tooling for the Auster A.61 Terrier and A.109 Airedale from Shoreham to a new facility at Porto. Meanwhile, OGMA would also transfer Auster D.4, D.5, and A.113 Husky production to the new plant. OGMA would continue to service Auster airframes for the Força Aérea Portuguesa (FAP) but new production was concentrated exclusively at Porto. [2]

Enter Embraer - Porto Products Proliferate

Beginning in 1973, Porto became the European distributor for the products of Brazil's Embraer. The  Força Aérea Portuguesa was the first European customer for the Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante twin-turboprop utility transports. [3] These aircraft were Brazilian-made but final fitting-out was done by Porto or OGMA, in the case of government-supplied military equipment. (Porto also acted as a distributor for the products of an Embraer partner firm - Indústria Aeronáutica Neiva Ltda.)

In late 1974, Porto and Embraer agreed to co-develop more radical derivatives of the Bandeirante. One concept which was to be overtaken by events was the EP 112 - a large-cabin EMB 110 derivative powered by twin 750 shp PT6A-34s or Napier equivalents. The EP 112 project was abandoned when the '-34 variants engines became standard fits on the Bandeirante itself. Two slightly later joint projects would have happier outcomes.

For Porto, both of the surviving joint projects were aimed at making further inroads into the European commercial aviation market. A secondary concern was satisfying a FAP requirement for a smaller utility transport which would be more economical to operate than the EMB 110PM Bandeirante. To this end, Porto led in the development of the single-turboprop EP 114 Douro [4] while Embraer was project lead for the EP 124 Carajá powered by two piston engines. [5]

(Top) Camouflaged Embraer/Porto EP 124PM in FAP service in the Azores

Projetado de Porto - The Embraer/Porto EP 114 Douro

From Porto's perspective, things did not go according to plan. In a surprise move, the FAP rejected the EP 114 Douro in favour of Embraer's EP 124 Carajá as its EP 124PM 'Açores' second-string utility transport. Funding difficulties meant that the first of six FAP EP 124PM 'Açores' did not enter service until the early '80s ... by which time, Porto had assembled and fitted-out numerous Carajá airframes for the civilian market.

Porto persisted with development for their EP 114 Douro turboprop. Progress was slow but the prototype EP 114 finally flew from Francisco Sa Carneiro (OPO) Airport in the summer of 1982. While the originally intended customer had shown no interest, the Douro was well-timed for an emerging market in small, often nocturnal parcel carriers where low noise-emission was critical. In the end, the EP 114 Douro would prove a modest but lasting commercial success while the twin-engined EP 124 Carajá would remain overshadowed by its larger, turboprop ancestor.

(Bottom) Third prototype Porto EP 114 prior to application of display livery for its US tour

______________________________


[1] OGMA coordinated with Porto on Austers for the Portuguese military - including some prototyping - but all production work would be undertaken at the new facility in Porto.

[2] Porto was jointly-owned by the Portuguese Government and a local industrial combine, Altri SGPS SA. Initially, the new firm operated as 'Auster' while being legally named as the Corporação Aeronáutica do Porto. The shortened form of 'AeroPorto' caused more than a little confusion and, outside of its homebase city, CAP became known simply as 'Porto'.

[3] FAP took on three distinct EMB 110 variants (all powered by Napier-built engines), these were the transport EMB 110PM (Portugual, Militar) 'Carga' equivalent to the FAB C-95/C-95A; the EMB 111PS (Portugual SAR) search-and-rescue variant equivalent to the FAB SC-95; and the EMB 111PP (Portugual, Patrulha) maritime patrol aircraft equivalent to the FAB P-95 'Bandeirulha' (but fitted with a GEC-Ferranti search radar in place of the Brazilian version's APS-128 set).

[4] The city of Porto is located in the Upper Douro River region. In assigning this name, Porto was also following a new FAP policy of naming transport aircraft types for major rivers.

[5] For Porto-assembled EP 124s, engines were 300 hp BAE B6G Bothas. Brazilian Carajá (usually listed as 'EMB 124s') had a choice of that Blackburn powerplant or US Lycoming IO-540s.

______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 01, 2017, 06:02:08 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=50ve6j26fg6ldh45ist2lkri64&topic=2618.msg131480#msg131480 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=50ve6j26fg6ldh45ist2lkri64&topic=2618.msg131480#msg131480)

Greg asked for a FAP Lightning ...

_________________________

'Relâmpago' - The English Electric Lightning in Portuguese Service

A military coup in 1974 brought more than a decade of Portuguese colonial conflict - the Guerra do Ultramar - to an end. With it came an easing of restrictions on supply of military equipment from NATO allies. This included the supply of 15 ex-RAF Lightning F.6 fighters from Britain towards the end of 1974.

The aircraft were ferried to Portugal by pilots from the Força Aérea Portuguesa (FAP) who had already received conversion training in Britain. By Christmas of 1974, the Lightning was in service with Esquadra 51 at BA5 (Base Aérea Nº 5) at Monte Real north of Lisbon.

(Top) Esq 51 Lightning F.6 in standard RAF day fighter finish, BA5, February 1975

Although Lightning two-seat conversion training was done in Britain though an agreement with the RAF, two single-seat Lightning F.6s were also assigned to EICPAC (Esquadra de Instrução Complementar de Aviões de Caça or the Advanced Fighter Training Squadron) which was based alongside Esquadra 51 at BA5. In 1978, Esquadra 51 was re-designated as Esquadra 201 Falcões but markings remained the same - other than the addition of a diving falcon badge added to the tail.

In the early 1980s, FAP Lightnings began cycling through OGMA (Oficinas Gerais de Material Aeronáutico) outside Lisbon for major maintenance and repair work. All paintwork was stripped to fully inspect airframes for corrosion and other wear, after which the fighters received a fresh coat of paint. The new scheme was overall medium grey with new, 'lo-viz' national insignia. [1]

(Bottom) The same Lightning F.6 after OGMA refurbishment, Esq 201, November 1984

The FAP Lightnings served until January 1990. [2] At the end of that month, a Falcões detachment returned from the Azores and active flying ended. The Lightnings were retired and Esq 201 was stood down on 28 Jan 1990. [3]

__________________________

[1] Individual aircraft 'buzz numbers' for FAP Lightnings were also omitted at this stage.

[2] By this stage, attrition had dictated that Esq 201 'reclaim' the EICPAC training Lightnings.

[3] Esquadra 201 would be re-activated at BA5 in October 1993 with F-16 Fighting Falcons.
__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 01, 2017, 06:05:34 AM
Thank you.  I had a slightly different back story in mind but your's will do. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on October 02, 2017, 05:05:49 AM
Whoa, nice!  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on October 03, 2017, 07:39:53 AM
Love the Lightnings!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 04, 2017, 02:55:49 AM
...  I had a slightly different back story in mind ...

Care to elaborate?  ;)
________________________________

Saunders-Roe Scout Variations

Conservative Government plans had both Bristol and Saunders-Roe being subsumed into Westland to create a single British helicopter manufacturer. The new Coalition Government elected in 1959 allowed the take-over of the helicopter division of Bristol but insisted that Saunders-Roe remain independent as a maker of small helicopters. Saro had won a reprieve.

The first move at Saro was an attempt at improving the in-service Wasp and Scout light utility helicopters. An opportunity was presented by Napier which offered a Canadian-made PT6B for a trial installation. This anticipated a production version powered by a Napier Rapier NT6B turboshaft (the P.531/6). The trial conversion (the P.531/4) was quite successful but the smaller engine was also less powerful than the original Blackburn Nimbus powerplant. As a result, the 'Napier-Scout' went no further.

Somewhat more successful was the Scout-based Saro P.551 Salamander AH.1. [1] This was an armoured, two-seat assault helicopter derivative of the Scout
airframe. The crew were protected by an armour-glass windscreen and the new forward fuselage had armour-plate lower-side and bottom panels (crew seats were also armoured). [2] The rear fuselage and powerplant were identical to the Scout AH.1 as were the tail surfaces (other than featuring enlarged endplates).

The Saro Salamander AH.1 entered British Army service in late 1970. Other than training machines, no Salamander was ever based in Britain - all were 'forward deployed' to either northern Norway or Denmark. The Salamander was most useful at developing anti-armour helicopter tactics. As a combat helicopter, the Salamander lacked power and, as a result, its armament was relatively weak.

In 1979-1980, the British Army began receiving new Lynx-based Westland Warrior AH.1 attack helicopters. As the Warriors were phased in, remaining Salamanders were transferred to the Royal Marines. [3] In RM service, these remained Salamander AH.1s (the 'AH' now being for 'Assault Helicopter' rather than 'Army Helicopter'). RM Salamanders added Kongsberg Penguin anti-shipping missiles to their range of weaponry. Eventually, the RM would follow the British Army's lead and replace its aging Salamanders with navalized Warriors.

___________________________________

[1] Salamander may seem an odd name for a flying machine. Apparently, the reference is to the salamander's mythical abilities to survive fire (or, in this case, hostile ground fire).

[2] Weight concerns prohibited the planned installation of armoured side panels to protect the engine and transmission.

[3] The Royal Marines also received a handful of ex-British Army Scout AH.1s. The Salamander was very similar to in-service RM Saro Wasps but the ex-Army Scouts allowed the Royal Marines to gain shipboard experience with skid landing gears.
___________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 04, 2017, 03:01:26 AM
Hawker Siddeley (Blackburn) Brigand carrier fighter

I haven't developed any real backstory for this one ... just had the notion of British-designed RN Phantom alternative (other than the Hawker P.1154). These would serve aboard the refurbished and refitted RN carriers HMS Eagle and Ark Royal (I'm assuming the CVA-01 concept never emerged in this EFTA scenario).

I'm imagining a Blackburn concept for a 'thin wing' Buccaneer (the Blackburn P-143) that develops into a clean-sheet fighter/interceptor design (the P.144 Brigand) for a generally 'skinnier' aircraft (while retaining the Bucc's cockpits and radar).

Radar would actually be the Ferranti AI.23C 'AIRPASS III' a close relative of the Buccaneer's Blue Parrot set. As with the Buccaneer S.2, the Brigand's engines are twin R-R Spey turbofans ... but now fitted with afterburners.

This Brigand F.2 is shown armed with four Red Top NG missiles for fairly short-endurance intercept missions. For longer-endurance missions, drop tanks would be carried on the inboard pylons and the belly pylon (if mounted). I've put this down as a Hawker Siddeley aircraft because a small run of such airframes would probably cost Blackburn its shirt.

With hindsight, I'm thinking that the afterburner exhaust nozzles are likely underscale. Also, maybe the tailfin should have been more highly modified (more sweep, for example)? Any other critiques or thoughts?

BTW: I've based this image on some lovely Czech Master box art (CMR72-238) ... but I can't make out the artist's signature (Jan somebody?)

________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on October 04, 2017, 07:47:56 PM
I love love love the Brigand!
Quote
With hindsight, I'm thinking that the afterburner exhaust nozzles are likely underscale. Also, maybe the tailfin should have been more highly modified (more sweep, for example)? Any other critiques or thoughts?

I think you've already hit the nail on the head. Maybe something along the lines of a Su-15 Flagon back end? I think the tail sweep is fine until it goes near-vertical. Perhaps delete the upper section and extended the sweep thus moving the horizontal tail further aft? Or possibly heresy but move the horizontal tail completely to the fuselage?

NV137 serial is for a Beaufighter. Perhaps XV870-something? Unallocated and just between a batch of Buccaneers & the cancelled F-111Ks.

Really great concept. Hope you expand on it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 04, 2017, 09:25:17 PM
What about a more F-4 Phantom type exhaust nozzle set up?

Could do with a slightly larger tail & more angle at the top. So, perhaps move the entire tail back a little & add a bit to the front edge, taking it straight up to the T-tail, without the bendy bit the Bucc has?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on October 05, 2017, 02:00:12 PM
Love the Saunders-Roe Salamander!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: CiTrus90 on October 05, 2017, 03:36:12 PM
:smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on October 06, 2017, 11:30:01 AM
Man, that Brigand is great!  Love the illustrations, as always!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 06, 2017, 10:38:11 PM
Love that Brigand!!  I agree that a more sharply swept vertical would be more likely, perhaps a straight leading edge from near the front of the present fillet to the top front corner of the fin would work.  For the back end, perhaps something along the lines of the Ye-152A or J-8II would work.  Since I can't see keeping the Buccaneer's tail airbrake on this aircraft, you should be able to work that backend for better reducing base drag.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 07, 2017, 07:04:49 AM
Thanks folks and great suggestions all for the Brigand. I wasn't going to expand on this ... but now I feel another Brigand coming on  >:D

Empty Handed: Thanks too for the RW serial gen. My NV137 serial was a bit of unresearched nonsense. For my EFTA scenario, I'd changed all RAF serials to a brand new series starting AXxxx and BXxxx. I picked the NV serial at random for naval aircraft  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 07, 2017, 11:09:28 AM
So, if you save SARO, does that mean the hovercraft division doesn't become BHC?  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 08, 2017, 05:48:25 AM
Thanks again for the well-thought-through suggestions for improving my Blackburn P.144 Brigand concept. Here's my stab at most of those suggestions ...

In the top pair of scrap views the RW Buccaneer S.2 (again, taken from the CMR box art) is compared with my original Brigand image. As can be seen, the Brigand's fin has been swept back slightly more and the horizontal tail positioned further aft.

The second pair show Empty Handed's suggestions. Left, the sweep of the entire fin/rudder has been increased placing the horizontal taiplane further aft as well. Right, a similarly-shaped fin with the tailplane moved down to the fuselage.

The bottom side-view shows Evan's suggestion of a fin with a straight leading edge. I think the latter is the most plausible ... although, IMHO, EH's increased sweep T-tail mod retains the most family likeness with the Buccaneer.
________________________

Jon: Only Saro's small helicopter division at Eastleigh (Southampton, ex-Cierva) is preserved.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on October 08, 2017, 07:42:01 PM
Your new serial system opens a lot of doors.

Love the new tails. I wonder what one will prove most popular. The heretical (love that) is my least favourite and I think increased commonality with the Buccs would be a key selling point. I agree the increased sweep mod is the most fitting for a Blackburn product (but then I would  ;) ) with Evan's mod being ideal for an evolved (export?) variant.

Great idea in all iterations.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 08, 2017, 10:57:16 PM
I think Evan's version best suits a fighter, especially a supersonic one, as there's less likelihood of turbulence over the rudder surfaces at trans- & supersonic speeds.

EmptyHanded's looks good but I don't think the tail would work as well with those kinks in that speed range.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 11, 2017, 05:49:08 AM
Thanks folks. More to EFTA scenario stuff come ... but guess which bozo forgot to load his new image onto the travel drive today  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 12, 2017, 07:27:25 AM

Handley-Page HPR.10 Himalayan

The Handley-Page HPR.10 was a Reading design office project to wring maximum performance from the HPR.7 Herald. The HPR.10 airframe was essentially that of the Herald but shorter to reduce weight. Invariably, the aviation press dubbed the HPR.10 as the 'Short Herald'. At first, Handley-Page branded the 'new' aircraft as the Helvetian in hopes on encouraging Swiss venture partners. [1] No Swiss money was forthcoming and the name was quickly changed to Himalayan (to emphasize its hot-and-high capabilities).

That promised hot-and-high performance would be the result of lower weight combined with the power output of 'full-sized' Rolls-Royce Dart turboprops. If economical operation was the priority, alternative engines in the form of the 1,500 shp Napier Gazelle TP [2] were recommended. It was this smaller Napier engines which would power all HPR.10s except the sole HPR.10D Dart-Himalayan prototype.

The HPR.10 Himalayan delivered the performance which Handley-Page had promised. Alas, the market for aircraft in this class was smaller than predicted. The HPR.10 never became the seller that Handley-Page needed so badly. Unexpectedly, the majority of the Himalayan sales would be for a dedicated cargo variant - the HPR.10C - and most HPR.10A passenger liners would later be converted into parcel carriers.

(Above) A Handley-Page HPR.10A cargo conversion in Parcel Express livery. Note side cargo doors and the 'Piston-Herald'-style fin and rudder.

Handley-Page HP.124M 'Ramped Herald'

The original Handley-Page HP.124 was a 1961 proposal for a ramped version of the HPR.7 Herald for military use. Submitted to the Air Ministry, the HP.124 proposal lost out to the Avro Andover. In some circles, the choice of the Andover was viewed as being politically influenced - after all, Avro was part of the Government-owned HSA Group while Handley-Page had remained an independent corporation.

Rather than entirely abandon work on the HP.124, Handley-Page management chose to further develop the concept as a potential export commodity. [3] The revived HP.124 project - the HP.124M - was conceptually similar but simplified for general military transport duties. Compared with the original project, the HP.124M rear fuselage of was shortened and the tailplane arrangement completely revised. [4]

Original plans called for a revised forward fuselage - with a lowered cockpit arrangement (to eliminate the rooftop 'bulge') and a nose profile incorporating a radome for weather radar. Later, it was decided to use a 'least-mod' forward fuselage although the nose profile was changed to follow the line of the radar installation.

(Bottom) HP.124M prototype while being fitted with strengthed main undercarriage and  a dihedralled horizontal tailplane to resolve buffeting issues.

The HP.124M was marketed as the Handley-Page Hannibal [5] but, despite, interest from several governments, only two sales were made - with two HP.124Ms for Chile and another pair going to Burma. In the end, the combined effort of producing the HPR.10 and the HP.124M would prove too much for Handley-Page. When the firm was wound up, both programs were sold to Hindustan Aviation. The Himalayan became Hindustan's HTT.101 Hanuman feederliner while the Hannibal was produced in India as the HAL HMT.124. [6]

_______________________________

[1] Pilatus would supply some HPR.10 components to Handley-Page but that Swiss firm was never a venture partner in the Himalayan program.

[2] As the name suggests, this engine was turboprop version of the Gazelle turboshaft. Napier had begun development work on the Gazelle TP in 1959 but work was delayed by the firm's on-going financial woes.

[3] A rival project was the HP.137 turboprop executive aircraft/light feederliner. The HP.137 fell between stools - facing potential competitors in both the Beagle B206-series and the DH.142 Dove NextGen turboprops.

[4] Initially, an all-new T-tail was considered. This was eclipsed by a Herald-based vertical tail and a low-set horizontal tailplane.

[5] An earlier proposal was 'Hengist' but this name was felt to be too English. The name Hannibal was a nod to the HP.42 airliner of the 1930s while invoking its mountain-crossing Carthaginian namesake.

[5] HAL also took over the HP.140 Hereford project. This was a Hannibal development powered by four 1,050 shp Blackburn Boreas turboprops.
________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on October 12, 2017, 07:01:13 PM
The Hannibal is great! I presume the HAL HMT.124 replaces the Indian's HS-748s in this scenario? Given the Herald's dimensions, a developed variant with higher MTOW & more powerful engines could offer a home-grown alternative to the Indian An-32 buy as well. Interesting... HP could have the last laugh after all!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2017, 03:32:05 AM
Thanks EH. Spot on, the HMT.124 replaces IAF HS-748s. And a homegrown An-32 would be quite feasible ...

In my original scenario, a further Hannibal development consisted of the same Herald wing but now with a centre section insert for slightly more inboard span (and, thus, sufficient prop clearance for Tynes) (I was also toying with the notion of a larger-diameter fuselage). The main undercarriage would be moved to the fuselage sides ... freeing up the nacelle rears for a pair of Viper booster jets (actually planned for the RW HP.124 but mounted in outboard tank/pods). So, maybe HP sold HAL that design too?

So, how about a T-tailled, jet-assisted HAL 'Super Hannibal' powered by Ivchenko AI-20s  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on October 13, 2017, 09:35:16 PM
Interesting. A Tyne/Viper Hannibal Plus to take on the C-160? The HAL Super Hannibal sounds interesting too. I don't normally do transports but this is quite an enjoyable lineage you are constructing here.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 14, 2017, 05:31:44 AM
Thanks EH. I had been working on a direct Transall competitor from Short Brother plc but realized that it would be too close in size to the Short Sheffield C.1/Short-Saab Svalbard series. http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=l9rgvl6p02d3nben89p5q6u8i6&topic=351.msg130197#msg130197 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=l9rgvl6p02d3nben89p5q6u8i6&topic=351.msg130197#msg130197)

I liked the notion of a jet-assisted 'Super Hannibal' for IAF use high up in the Himalayas. In the RW, though, HAL never seems to have much luck with transport projects - witness Salas and the RTA (and I'll believe the Multi-role Transport Aircraft when I see it fly in IAF colours!).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2017, 05:55:16 AM
An idea that Daryl J. and Greg discussed in the Ideas & Inspiration section ages ago - Chinese J-10 fighters in the markings of South American air forces which currently operate the IAI Kfir. So, here they are ... kinda.

(Top) Colombian Chengdu J-10b in the standard FAC scheme of two-tone camouflage (with a wavy demarcation line) and decidedly hi-viz national markings. The J-10's Colombian nickname - Cóndor - is emblazoned on the fin. This Cóndor is armed with a pair of Xi'an PL-8 AAMs (Rafael Python 3 copies).

(Bottom) A Peruvian J-10b in standard Chinese two-tone camouflage with lo-viz FAP markings. The latter are somewhat compromised by a rather bright FAP centennial commemoration badge on the fin and the as-yet-unpainted nose radome and fin-top dielectric panel. The avionics fit on the FAP J-10b is a mix of Chinese and French equipment. Note the outboard pylon with Matra paired AAM mount.

(BTW, AFAIK, Peru has never operated the Kfir. I took the scheme from FAP Mirage 2000s.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on October 17, 2017, 06:06:29 AM
Lovely bird  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 17, 2017, 11:32:15 PM
Nice ones!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 18, 2017, 02:39:00 AM
 :smiley:

Maybe also add in an Argentine one in the future?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 24, 2017, 04:37:17 AM
Greg was asking about Hawker Tempest Reno racers. I liked the racer idea but decided to back-date things a bit...

The 'Steam-Cooled Hawker Tempest' was a private venture racer created by the SCHT Consortium - a group of Napier and Rootes Securities employees. Constructed over the winter of 1946-1947 at Speke outside of Liverpool, the airframe was a combination of surplus components. The fuselage was from a salvaged Tempest F.Mk.V while the wings came from a cancelled RAF Hawker Fury. The racer's most radical feature, as the name implied, was its evaporative steam cooling.

The entire leading edge of the former Fury's outer main planes were filled with steam-cooling tubing loops. Much of the rear fuselage was occupied by a trio of steam condenser vessels. The SCHT's ultimate powerplant was to be a Napier Sabre VII. [1] However, the engine actually installed for test flying was a Sabre V intended for an RAF Tempest F.Mk.VI - which required wing air intakes. The cockpit canopy was an entirely new, low-drag affair.

(Top) The 'Steam-Cooled Hawker Tempest' during completion. Many primed components are still awaiting their covering of aluminised paint.

Once the racer was completed, it was test flown with the standard Napier Sabre V by Plt Off P.H. Preston (a wartime Tempest pilot with 274 Squadron, RAF). Almost immediately after take-off, great quantities of coolant steam were seen to be escaping from the rear fuselage. The pilot was banking G-SCHT in an attempt to return to Speke Aerodrome when the powerplant seized altogether. With all coolant gone and its Sabre engine on fire, Preston abandoned the doomed racer.

(Bottom) The hybrid Tempest/Fury racer G-SCHT on its doomed test flight. The beginnings of a racing scheme have been chalked on over the silver finish but there was no opportunity to apply this paintwork.

The flaming 'Steam-Cooled Hawker Tempest' came down in the Mersey. So did Philip Preston - safely, despite his parachute being only partially-deployed. The wreck of G-SCHT was never recovered. The SCHT consortium folded and attempts at steam-cooled aero-engines were abandoned once and for all.

__________________________________________

[1] As a service engine, the Sabre VII produced 3,055 hp at 2,250 feet (in 'M' gear). It was planned that this engine would to be specially tuned for racing to produce 3,250 hp for short bursts.
__________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 24, 2017, 02:03:36 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2017, 06:55:11 AM
Thanks Greg. Probably what you had in mind for a Reno Tempest was something more like this: the Hawker Tempest Mk.V racer, 'Critical Mass' ... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 25, 2017, 02:49:05 PM
Oh yeah!!! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 31, 2017, 06:08:36 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7518.msg132257#msg132257 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7518.msg132257#msg132257)
_____________________________________

Bristol Type 142S 'Shipboard Blenheim'

The 1939 Bristol Type 142S (Shipboard) was a Blenheim Mk.I variant which was being prepared for the 1940 Paris Salon. Never completed, the Type 142S was a bit of propagandistic nonsense intended to deceive German Intelligence as to British naval capabilities.

The standard Blenheim was far too large to operated from existing aircraft carriers. One goal of the Type 142S was to convince German planners that the Royal Navy would soon be able to launch medium bombers against targets in Germany from flight decks in the North Sea. To that end, a non-flying mockup of a shipboard Blenheim was to created from the components of several Blenheim Mk.I wrecks.

The Type 142S retained the identity of its forward fuselage component - K7036. To suit shipboard use, the outer wing panels were fitted with folding points. The added weight of 'navalisation' was to be countered by replacing the Blenheim's 840 hp Mercury engines with more powerful 1,100 hp Bristol Taurus twin-row radials. To facilitate this engine change, K7036 received the complete nacelles and main undercarriage from the new Type 152 Beaufort torpedo bomber.

(Top) Bristol Type 142S 'Shipboard Blenheim' airframe being test fitted with torpedo gear. For take off (and landing, if necessary), the was angled nose downward to increase ground clearance for the torpedo.

With the declaration of war, all work on the 'Shipboard Blenheim' ruse was halted. No foldable outer wing panels were ever built. The fuselage was returned to fore and aft section for use in repair of existing Blenheims.

'Recce Blenheim' Revised

In the lead-up to WW2, the RAF had assumed that standard Blenheim bomber units would be capable of performing all long-range photographic reconnaissance tasks. The concept was that the bombers would be able to fight their way through aerial defences, take photographs, and then fight their way back to Allied lines. Bristol was less certain that its twin-gunned Blenheim bomber would survive such missions.

In late 1939, Bristols re-delivered Blenheim Mk.I L1348 reworked as a high-speed photo recce platform. The airframe was 'cleaned up' with  skin joins filled with plaster of Paris and then rubbed smooth, a streamlined nose-cap added, turret removed, wingtips clipped, and other refinements. The result was a 22 mph increase in maximum speed at 8,000 feet. A useful improvement in performance but not sufficient to avoid interception by German fighters.

To increase 'Recce Blenheim' top speed further, more power was required. To that end, the wing centre section and engine nacelles from the incomplete Type 142S were transferred to the 'Recce Blenheim' prototype. At the same time, the entire airframe was stripped and refinished in a new Medium Blue paintwork. [1] At a stroke, this re-engined Type 142P 'Recce Blenheim' was capable of 'dash' speeds in excess of 320 mph at 9,000 feet.

(Bottom) Type 142P 'Recce Blenheim' of No.2 Camouflage Unit as delivered in June 1940. This aircraft was lost on a PR mission to Ostend in September 1940.

The Taurus-engined 'Recce Blenheim' proved a one-off. Seeking further performance gains, production Type 142Ps (all built by AV Roe at Chadderton) were powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin inline engines.

_________________________________________________

[1] Medium Blue (or PR Blue as it became known) replaced the earlier Camotint finish which had proved ineffective at higher altitudes.

_________________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 31, 2017, 06:54:34 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on October 31, 2017, 07:06:48 AM
You can NEVER go wrong with a PRU blue finish.  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on October 31, 2017, 01:21:22 PM
The hybrid Tempest/Fury racer G-SCHT
Belated congratulations for your Tempest/Fury racer, so pretty... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 01, 2017, 06:48:58 AM
Chengdu Change-Ups

No real backstories, just a pair of export Chengdu FC-1 Fierce Dragons ...

(Top) A Taiwan AF FC-1Tw delivered on 'Friendship Prices' after the PRC unexpectedly renounced its claims on Formosa in 2019. This aircraft wears a squadron 30th anniversary commemorative scheme (EI27) having been chosen for its date-appropriate serial number.

(Bottom) Chengdu FC-1E Xiaolong of the Jinshan zìwèiduì (金山 自卫队 or Gold Mountain Self-Defence Force). This fighter wears a '2021 Airshow Special' scheme - full-colour Jinshan flags on its tail with otherwise 'low-viz' markings.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on November 01, 2017, 10:43:56 AM
So San Francisco's Chinatown seceded?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 01, 2017, 09:08:01 PM
So San Francisco's Chinatown seceded?
Perhaps they couldn't stand living in the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republic of California?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 02, 2017, 07:31:07 AM
Cool idea and rendition. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 04, 2017, 07:24:48 AM
So San Francisco's Chinatown seceded?

 ;D  Pretty much anywhere Chinese migrants chased gold became 'Gold Mountain'. Melbourne became 'New Gold Mountain', SF/California was 'Old Gold Mountain' ... but there was/is yet another Gold Mountain  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 07, 2017, 04:29:48 AM
Perhaps inevitably, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force's ambitious FS-X programme fell behind schedule. The winning design - Mitsubishi's SX-3 (which would become the F-2A/B) - was based on the General Dynamics F-16 but JASDF requirements led to an almost complete redesign of the US fighter. Worse, US politicians demanded a straight purchase of US-built aircraft causing Washington to drag its feet. To fill the gap, the JASDF would need an interim solution.

Two camps developed within JASDF planning at the Air Staff Office. One, backed by the Air Development and Test Command, urged the immediate purchase or lease of standard US F-16s. The second followed the leaning of the Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) which saw an opportunity to expand Japanese aerospace. In the end, a deteriorating economic climate favoured the 'domestic' camp.

The only practical basis for an interm strike fighter was the aircraft that the F-2 was intended to replace - the Mitsubishi F-1, a single-seat variant of the Mitsubishi T-2 fighter-trainer. The plan which emerged was a major rebuild of older F-1s to create an interim strike aircraft which would later make an ideal FLIT (Fighter Lead-In Trainer) for the more advanced F-2 when it arrived. To that end, the F-1 airframe was left largely unchanged aft of the engine intakes (for maximum commonality with in-service T-2s and stock F-1s) while a completely new forward fuselage was grafted on which incorporated a cockpit laid out as in the F-2.

Mitsubishi also proposed a two-seat trainer version - the STX-4. The latter entered service as the  Mitsubishi T-2B ... but only in small numbers. Although the T-2B's F-2-style cockpit was of obvious benefit, JASDF policy shifted to favour retaining standard T-2s until 2-seat F-2B trainers were in service.

More successful was the Mitsubishi F-1 Kai. These single-seat fighters would completely replace the earlier F-1 in all operational squadrons. [1] Operationally, the key advantage of the F-1 Kai was its more powerful AN/APG-68 radar from the F-16. The US-made radar choice helped to calm American politicians but that pulse-doppler set was slated to be replaced by the superior Mitsubishi Electric's J/APG-1 AESA radar (which would also equip the F-2 when it arrived). Unlike with the original F-1, the F-1 Kai's cut-down rear fuselage allowed pilots to 'Check 6'. The F-1 Kai was also more powerful.

The T-2 and F-1 were powered by twin TF40-IHI-801As - Ishikawajima-Harima Industries (IHI) licensed Adour 801s. The original plan for the F-1 Kai/T-2B was to re-engine with the Honeywell/ITEC F125 (TFE1042-70A). [2] This low-bypass turbofan was planned for the Republic of China's AIDC F-CK Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF). TRDI sought joint projects with Taiwan and licensing the F125 for production in Japan (for both the F-1 Kai/T-2B program and Taiwan's IDF) seemed to fit the bill.

Unfortunately for the TRDI, both the ROC(Taiwan)AF and domestic engine producer IHI were very cool on building the Honeywell engine in Japan. As an alternative, IHI suggested license-producing the Rolls-Royce Turboméca Adour 106. The uprated Adour 106 was less powerful than the F125-70 [3] but it required no changes to the F-1 engine bays and shared most parts with the in-service TF40-IHI-801A. In light of the rebuff from Taiwan, the IHI proposal was accepted and the Adour 106 entered production in Japan as the TF40-IHI-821A. [4]

While the small numbers of T-2B were a disappointment for Mitsubishi, the F-1 Kai did exactly what was expected of it. The F-1 Kai was slightly faster that the 'stock' F-1 (and was fitted with a far superior radar) but it remained a modified training aircraft. Not suprisingly, the Mitsubishi F-1 Kai was at its best when transferred to the FLIT role for the faster, better-equipped F-2.

(Top) Mitsubishi F-1 Kai single-seat fighter, 6th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 8th Air Wing, JASDF, at Tsuiki Air Base, Fukuoka Prefecture

(Bottom) Mitsubishi T-2B(Z) of 207th TFS, 7th Air Wing, JASDF, at Naha Air Base, Okinawa. This is a Zenkigata (early type) model which retained the earlier T-2's Mitsubishi J/AWG-11 radar.

_______________________________________


[1] The relative economy of the F-1 Kai programme allowed the JASDF to retain one former F-104J/DJ unit - the 207th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Naha Air Base, in Okinawa Prefecture.

[2] The F125 is a derivative of Honeywell's civilian TFE731 turbofan fitted with a Volvo Flygmotor TFE1042 afterburner (the non-afterburning variant is the F124).

[3] The F125-70 produces 9,500 lbf in full afterburner compared with the TF40-IHI-821A/Adour 106's 8,430 lbf.

[4] The TF40-IHI-821A is very similar to the Adour 821 which was offered for the Indian Air Force's Jaguar upgrades.

_______________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 07, 2017, 06:55:04 AM
Cool.  What about a carrier based version?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 19, 2017, 07:25:41 AM
Shipboard Mitsubishi - the F-1C Kai

Planning for the revised Mitsubishi F-1 Kai as a JASDF single-seat fighter was coincident with plans for what became the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force's Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. It was soon realized that, with the addition of a bow 'ski jump' ramp, the Hyūga class would be capable of handling a lightweight fixed-wing shipboard fighter.

The relatively small wings of the F-1 were seen as a disadvantage for a land-based fighter [1] but became a benefit for a carrier fighter - no wing-folding was required. As design work progressed on a shipboard variant of the F-1 Kai, a handful of pre-production F-1 Kai(Z) (Zenkigata or 'early type') fighters were transferred from the JASDF to the JMSDF Fleet Air Force (航空集団, Koukuushuudan). These aircraft had most of the F-1 Kai airframe upgrades but retained the non-upgraded F-1's Mitsubishi Electric J/AWG-11 radar. [2]

The arrival of full-production JASDF F-1 Kais, the F-1 Kai(Z) fleet became redundant. However, the JMSDF judged these fighters ideal for 'acclimitizing' pilots to fast jets as well as for 'spoofing' the fleet on exercises. The F-1 Kai(Z)s equipped a flight within the JMSDF's Air Development Squadron 51 based at NAF Atsugi.

ADevS 51 is a JMSDF tenant squadrons at Naval Air Facility Atsugi which is the home base of the US Navy's Carrier Air Wing Five. Pre-series Mitsubishis at NAS Atsugi operated alongside USN Super Hornets. And that gave ADev 51 the opportunity to make the types first practice shipboard landings as 'guests' aboard US Navy carriers.

(Top) A pre-production F-1 Kai(Z) with ADevS 51 at NAS Atsugi

By the time the first 'production conversion' to F-1C Kai standard was delivered, the JMSDF had already abandoned plans for a 'ski jump' on the JS Hyūga (DDH-181). It was hoped that builders IHI Marine United could find construction economies which would allow later hulls in the Hyūga class to carry shipboard fighters. But that was not to be. Instead, the Hyūga class budget was actually cut.

The F-1C Kai fighters became land-based naval fighters assigned to Air Defense Squadron 32 within  Fleet Air Wing 3. [3] These strike fighters featured full F-1 Kai upgrades including Mitsubishi Electric J/APG-1 radar sets and more powerful IHI TF40-IHI-821A engines. Like ADevS 51, ADS 31 is home-based at NAS Atsugi but its fighters are often forward deployed throughout the Japanese Home Islands on anti-shipping patrols.

(Bottom) ADS 31 F-1C Kai fighter in 'Maritime Strike' scheme deployed to Tsuiki AB.

The F-1C Kai is regarded as a potent yet economical strike fighter by the JMSDF. Long-term plans are to replace these aircraft with a maritime strike-optimized version of the Mitusbishi F-2 fighter. But, for the foreseeable future, the JMSDF's F-1C Kai fighters will serve on.
_______________________________________

[1] An enlarged wing was studied for the F-1 Kai upgrade but could not be fit within that programme's limited budget.

[2] F-1 Kai(Z)s had the J/AWG-11 simply because the AESA J/APG-1 set was not yet ready. The F-1 Kai(Z) pre-series also retained the earlier F-1's less-powerful IHI TF40-IHI-801A turbojets.

[3] ADS 32 was the first flying unit within Fleet Air Wing 3 (FAF 3 has no '31' squadron to avoid confusion with FAF 31's Maintenance and Supply Squadron 31 at Iwakuni AB).

_______________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 19, 2017, 07:34:55 AM
(Returning to an old theme - the French Defiant ...)

Boulton-Paul first acquired a license for the designs of the Societe d'Application des Machines Motrices when a French turret was successfully tried in the nose position of an Overstrand. As the Boulton-Paul 'Type A', that SAMM turret was then applied to the Defiant 2-seat fighter. The French firm then suggested joint-development of an 'Export Defiant'/'P.82 Internationale' variant. The initial concept was for this aircraft to be armed with a SAMM/B-P Type A turret armed with four French MAC 34 (belt-fed Mitrailleuse de 7,5 mm - Modèle 1934 M.39) or FN-Browning guns in the calibre specified by customers.

SAMM's key interest in the Defiant was as a potential aircraft sale to the Armée de l'Air. To that end, B-P began construction of a third prototype Defiant for demonstration. Alas, the original concept was reviewed by the STAé and rejected - the Armée de l'Air had moved firmly towards 20mm cannons as defensive armaments. Fortunately, SAMM was already designing a power-assisted mount for the preferred Hispano-Suiza HS 404 cannon.

Construction of the third prototype Defiant began under an Air Ministry contract (as K8330) but its completion without a Type A turret meant that this machine was finished before the second prototype (K8320). [1] In the end, the Air Ministry released K8330 for export development work by Boulton-Paul. [2] In July 1939, this aircraft was delivered to SAMM at Issy-les-Moulineaux where it was to be fitted with its armament.

Upon arrivable, the Defiant's 'empty' rear cockpit was reconfigured for the electro-pneumatic SAMM A/B 34 mount and its 20 mm armament. Once fitted an tested, this aircraft was immediately flown to Villacoublay for trials by the Section technique de l'aéronautique. Known to the French as the SAMM BP 82-03, [3] this aircraft was successfully put through its paces and a production order quickly issued in late Aug 1939.

(Top) The prototype SAMM BP 83-03 in its original, Merlin-powered configuration. STAé trials at Villacoublay, early August 1939. Although the SAMM A/B 34 gun-mount was praised, Boulton-Paul's sliding rear canopy was judged inadequate.

Although 'war clouds' with gathering, the Armée de l'Air insisted upon further comparative trials with a French-engined aircraft. In mid-September 1939, SAMM was able to convince authorities at Villacoublay that re-engining the BP 82-03 with an Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y-31 would suffice. That work was acheived quite quickly but SAMM was finding deliveries of 20 mm guns from Hispano-Suiza very slow. As a back-up scheme, the SAMM A/B 170 triple MAC 34 mount was suggested. No detail design work was undertaken, however, as the military was confident that deliveries would improve.

SAMM was able to complete pre-production SAMM 82 C2 [4] fighters very quickly thanks to major components being delivered from Wolverhampton. But this was not sustainable as the RAF was also chaffing as Defiant deliveries began to fall behind schedule. SAMM was also struggling to complete its turret and gun-mount work for the French military. When the collapse came in June 1940, not a single production model SAMM 82 C2 had been completed.

However, Armée de l'Air blooded its pre-production 'Defiants' over the Sedan. These AdA BP 82 C2s had a modest advantage over their RAF equivalents - a moteur-mitrailleuse firing forward through the 'hollow' propeller hub. It didn't help. A few unserviceable BP 82s were abandoned to the rapidly-advancing Wehrmacht but most were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters. The 'chasse à tourelle' concept had proven a failure.
 
(Bottom) SAMM BP 82 C2 of an unknown units as captured by German ground troops in northern France. Retreating Armée de l'Air fitters have ensured that this aircraft would never fly again. Note the pre-production standard pivoting perspex hood covering the rear gunner's position.

_____________________________

[1] Completion of the third prototype was speeded through the reuse of components from the first Defiant prototype, K8310. This included its somewhat aenemic 1,030 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin I engine,  the original rear fuselage fairings, and other, minor parts.

[2] Since this release occurred before the third prototype Defiant was complete, the serial K8330 was then transferred to a Hawker Audax army co-operation aircraft under construction by Avro.

[3] At Wolverhampton, BP 82-03 was known as the Boulton-Paul P.82F (or, more often, simple as the 'French Job').

[4] That 'C2' was an AdA role designator (for Chasse-Biplace or 2-seat fighter) but note that 'BP' (for Boulton-Paul) was also dropped from the French service designation.
_____________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 19, 2017, 01:01:12 PM
 :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 01, 2017, 08:24:01 AM
Another stab at a 'bubble-top' Wildcat ...

'Foxtrot Mike Trey' - the Eastern Aircraft FM-3

Having been assigned production of the Grumman Wildcat, General Motor's Eastern Aircraft Division set about tweaking that fighter's design to keep it current. An early suggestion was to fit the Eastern-built FM-1 with an all-around vision canopy based on that of the Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket. However, the priority was in better suiting the Wildcat for use from short-decked escort carriers. That led to the lighted, Wright R-1820-56 Cyclone-powered Eastern FM-2.

The 'still-born' Eastern XF2M Photo-Recon Wildcat

Eastern design staffers were also working on a faster derivative for use as a photo-reconnaissance type from 'full-sized' aircraft carriers. This aircraft would be powered by the Pratt & Whitney R-2000-2F twin-row radial. Its wings would be 'wet' - ie, full of fuel tanks and non-folding. To give the pilot of this unarmed aircraft maximum visibility, the all-around vision canopy concept was revived. For the latter, Grumman passed on details of the canopy being designed for the new XF8F-1 Bearcat fighter.

Eastern obtained an R-2000 from Pratt & Whitney and a prototype installation was begun. This airframe also had its dorsal 'spine' frames cut down for a 'bubble-top' canopy. Construction of the XF2M prototype was quickly halted, however, when the US Navy decided it had no interest in further development of the Wildcat as a photo-recon aircraft.

[Top] The semi-finished Eastern XF2M conversion to P&W R-2000-1 powerplant [1]

'SuperCat' -  the Eastern XFM-3 Escort Carrier Fighter

Eastern persisted with its 'bubble-top' Wildcat, but now as a straightforward development of the FM-2. A semi-completed FM-2 airframe (BuAer 56684) was selected for conversion to the Bearcat-based all-around vision canopy ... thereby becoming the prototype for the FM-3 series. First flown by BA 'Bud' Gillies [2] on 28 May 1944, the XFM-3 was quickly passed on to the Naval Air Testing Center at NAS Patuxent River for US Navy trials.

NATC was impressed with the advantages of the XFM-3 and the US Navy followed its recommendation to substitute the 'bubble-topped' model in all outstanding contracts for the FM-2. [3] Beginning with BuAer 57041, the FM-2 was eclipsed on Eastern's Linden, NJ production line by FM-3 'SuperCats'.

[Bottom] Prototype Eastern XFM-3 at NATC Pax River. Note that Eastern has incorrectly applied the 'star-and-bars' without their Insignia Blue background. Such was the urgency of the FM-3 program that the prototype went through its entire service with national markings applied directly over the fighter's midnight blue finish (ANA 623 Glossy Sea Blue).

______________________________


[1] The XF2M-1 fuselage was later fitted with a Cyclone engine and folding fighter wings before being delivered to the US Navy to satisfy part of the FM-3A contract.

[2] 'Bud' Gillies was a Grumman employee but, by a Bureau of Aeronautics' recommendation, the test pilot was sub-contracted to General Motors until production of the Eastern FM-3 was fully established.

[3] One criticism was for the relocated emergency life raft - which was relocated from the fuselage spine to just behind the pilot's seat. This necessitated the jettisoning of the sliding canopy when ditching. If the canopy jettison operation failed, extricating the raft was awkward in the extreme.
____________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 01, 2017, 11:43:26 AM
Nice SuperCat, enriching the family without waiting for the BearCat... :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 02, 2017, 04:02:51 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 03, 2017, 06:34:07 AM

Other than its bubble canopy, the Eastern FM-3 was all but identical to the 'ridge-back' FM-2 Wildcat. [1] The FM-3 retained its predecessor's four-gun armament and 1,350 hp Wright R-1820-62 Cyclone engine. The FM-3 entered active service with Composite Squadron 93 alongside Eastern-built TBF-1C Avenger torpedo-bombers. In March 1945, VC-93's FM-3s replaced the FM-2-equipped VC-90 aboard USS Steamer Bay (CVE-87) a Casablanca class escort carrier. [2]

[Top] Eastern FM-3 flown by Lt(jg) JF Tuttle of VC-93, USS Steamer Bay, late April 1945

The XFM-4 demonstrated a potential engine alternative for Eastern's Wildcat series. In place of the Wright Cyclone, the FM-4 was to be powered by Pratt & Whitney's R-1860 Super Hornet. In its R-1860-20W form, this engine was expected to produce just 1,500 hp for take-off - a substantial increase over the FM-3's Wright Cyclone. A slight weight increase resulted from the XFM-4's large spinner, 4-bladed Aeroproducts propeller, and fan-cooling. [3]

The closely-cowled and fan-cooled engine proved the XFM-4's Achilles heel. The R-1860-20W never did produce its promised power output but that was a minor consideration compared to the constant over-heating suffered by the Super Hornet. At this point in the war, Pratt & Whitney did not have the resources to perfect the R-1860. Instead, the Super Hornet project was abandoned and the anticipated FM-4 series along with it.

[Bottom] Super Hornet-powered XFM-4 prototype at Eastern Aircraft's Linden, NJ airfield

______________________________

[1] The Wildcat name stuck. The US Navy rejected Eastern's proposed SuperCat for the FM-3 as readily as they had rejected the name Mongoose for the FM-2.

[2] Prior to embarking CV-90, CVE-87 acted as a Carrier Transport Squadron, delivering replacement aircraft for the Third Fleet until mid-November 1944.

[3] The cooling fan arrangement was based on that of P&W's R-2800-57(C) engine. The smaller-diameter propeller from Aeroproducts (another GM division) was intended to reduce deck strikes.

______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on December 03, 2017, 06:55:18 AM
WOW  :smiley:!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on December 03, 2017, 07:33:03 AM
Great job as always  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 03, 2017, 11:56:11 AM
The FM-4 with its aerodynamic spinner is very beautiful, thanks! (I imagine a radial engined derivative from it, even better aerodynamically...).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dy031101 on December 04, 2017, 02:51:31 PM
The bubble-canopy Wildcats are great!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on December 04, 2017, 06:17:19 PM
The bubble-canopy Wildcats are great!  :smiley:

Totally are dude - wow -  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 05, 2017, 08:18:16 AM
Thanks folks! More to come ...  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 05, 2017, 12:29:51 PM
More to come ...  ;)
You are teasing... More is possible but "better" seems impossible, doesn't it? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on December 05, 2017, 02:04:15 PM
Really enjoying that Wildcat and I do so admire your work.  Looking forward to the next one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 06, 2017, 06:04:45 AM
Thanks folks. Here comes some ugly ones  ;)

You are teasing... [/quote]

Only because I forgot to bring my travel drive to the computer lab  :-[

________________________________

A Whale of a Fighter - Eastern Aircraft and the Propeller-Turbine

Even the biggest Wildcat fans would not claim that corpulent fighter to be the most aesthetically pleasing example of the aeronautical arts. But, judged on looks alone, two of the designs of the Eastern Aircraft Division hit a new low.

Eastern was asked to flight-test the new General Electric TG-100 turboprop [1] engine intended for the mixed-power Ryan XF2R-2 'Dark Shark' fighter. As a proven airframe, the FM-3 was chosen for the task. The TG-100 was to be attached to the Wildcat's firewall and governed to 1,600 shp.

An early-production FM-3 [2] was selected for conversion to turboprop power. Engine installation was straightforward but governing proved unnecessary - the TG-100, on its best days, only produced 1,500 shp. Even still, it was necessary to add considerably to the tail surfaces to match the now much-lengthened nose. This was accomplished with a long ventral strake and an enlarged tail (as intended for the production FM-4 model) to which was added a huge dorsal fin extension.

The resulting conversion was redesignated XFM-6 [3] but the aircraft's grotesque appearance earned it the sobriquet of 'Whale Shark' at Eastern. The long 'snout' of the XFM-6 combined with the Wildcat's narrow-track undercarriage made taxiing the XFM-6 in any degree of crosswind more than challenging. Nonetheless, the US Navy was satisfied with this test bed and the sole XFM-6 was delivered to Ryan for XF2R 'Dark Shark' development work.

[Top] Eastern XFM-6 'Whale Shark' conversion prior to delivery to Ryan Aeronautics

Before the lessons of the 'Whale Shark' experience were tallied, Eastern's Linden design office staff began work on a new TG-100 powered fighter. Dubbed the 'Turbine-Propeller Escort Fighter', this was a fresh design which incorporated a number of FM-3 components. At the time, the Linden office was cooperating with Bell Aircraft (of which, more later) and that Buffalo firm's expertise in mid-engined arrangements and tricycle undercarriages was drawn upon.

The Bureau of Aeronautics encouraged Eastern to 'flesh out' its design study but thought was given to a prototype construction contract. Other than being turboprop-powered, the 'TPEF' concept followed the general arrangement of Bell's P-39 and P-63 fighters. Initial concerns were that fuel carried for the 'thirsty' TG-100 was inadequate but plans existed for detachable wing tip tanks to increase range. Once the limitations of GE's TG-100 engine were apparent, work on the 'TPEF' was ended.

[Bottom] General appearance of the final 'Turbine-Propeller Escort Fighter' concept. No mockup was ever built of the 'TPEF'.
______________________________

[1] The TG-100 engine was later designated T31 but General Electric could never get its turboprop to deliver the promised power.

[2] FM-3 BuAer 57167 had been returned to Eastern after suffering a major engine fire on the ground at NAS Pensacola (where it had been assigned to Cadet Advanced Flight Training duties).

[3] The XFM-6 was a 'recycled' designation. The original FM-6 proposal was for an unbuilt FM-3A development armed with four 20 mm cannons in place of the standard .50 cal machine guns.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 06, 2017, 06:27:53 AM
Wildcat Deviations - Eastern Aircraft's Flying Bomb and Rocket Fighter

Better-looking than the Eastern turboprops were two projects using more repurposed Wildcat parts. The first was a remotely-controlled flying bomb Wildcat conversion. These conversions received a pair of intentionally deceptive cover designations ... misrepresenting the conversions as either new fighter types or as glide-bombs. Early versions were the FM-7 (aka LBM-1) based on F3F-4 and FM-1 airframes. Later conversions were based on the FM-2 and redesignated FM-8 (and LBM-2). [1]

The conversion was quite extensive. The rear fuselage was made removable (to accommodate a payload of high-explosives behind the former cockpit) and the dorsal 'spine' frames were removed. The former cockpit area itself housed the radio equipment and batteries displaced by the explosives. The former main undercarriage bag now held an added bag-type fuel tank.

The flying bombs were controlled from accompanying Eastern TBM-1 Avengers. The radio controls, provided by Radioplane, functioned very well. The difficulty was the original operational concept. In effect, the LBMs were to be pilotless 'kamikazes' but the converted Wildcats were just as vulnerable to naval anti-aircraft fire as their Japanese inspiration. In the end, most LBMs (under the 'umbrella' of Guided Missile Unit 90) were expended against land targets during Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu.

[Top] FM-8/LBM-2 flying bomb conversion. The obsolete camouflage scheme sprang from a decision to use up existing stocks of paint on the 'BombCat' conversions.

Japanese kamikaze attacks prompted another Wildcat-based project. In the Spring of 1945, NACA approached Eastern about developing a naval emergency interceptor based on some Wildcat components. The NACA had been working on an experimental rocket-powered aircraft and planners realized that such a powerplant might make for a quick-reaction fighter capable of intercepting kamikaze aircraft. What became the XF5M-1 'KamiCat' was a NACA-led project involving Eastern for component supply and final assembly; Reaction Motors Inc. [2] for the rocket engine; and Vidal Research Corporation for the moulded plywood fuselage.

Vidal was quick in supplying a sample fuselage which Eastern assembled with FM-3 wings and tailplane. A tricycle undercarriage was developed [3] which deployed by gravity (but could not then be retracted). The hold-up was with the powerplant. Reaction Motors' RMI 5000C1 rocket. This 4-chambered motor was intended to produce 5,000 lbf of thrust in three stages (2 x chambers during climb out, 1 x chamber for sustained flight, and the remaining chamber for pursuit of the selected target). RMI encountered difficulties in both the ignition of individual chambers and in providing more than 3,500 lbf of total thrust.

While waiting on a flight-ready motor, the prototype XF5M-1 'KamiCat' was ballasted to simulate the weight of a rocket motor and fuel. Fitted with a tow hook, the XF5M-1 was flown as a glider. [4] The XF5M-1 flew very well as a glider but these flights also revealed fundamental flaws with the 'KamiCat' concept. Assuming that the fighter's first, powered attack was successful, it proved nearly impossible to zoom-climb high enough for a second, unpowered diving attack. Equally difficult was the planned, unpowered recovery aboard a CVE.

The questions raised about the operational viability of the 'KamiCat' became moot when the XF5M-1 was trial-fitted with its rocket motor. On its first, installed ground test, the RMI 5000C1 exploded, completely destroying the prototype - fortunately, without loss of life. No replacement was ordered and the naval rocket interceptor concept was abandoned.

[Bottom] Prototype NACA/Eastern XF5M-1 'KamiCat' interceptor with dummy rocket motor installed.

Meanwhile, in its primary role as a production facility, Eastern Aircraft continued to churn out Wildcats for use from Allied CVEs. In mid-1945, the major production model - the FM-5A - was just being introduced.

______________________________


[1] Although in official records, the FM-8/LBM-2 was usually listed as the 'FM-2K'. Presumably, the earlier model was properly designated 'FM-1K' as well.

[2] Reaction Motors Inc. (RMI) was an Eastern neighbour, being located 30 miles down the road in Pompton Plains, NJ.

[3] The XF5M-1's main gear used some Wildcat undercarriage components but was rather shorter.

[4] A dummy, unmanned prototype had already been successfully test-launched from a shore-based catapult at NAS Pax River.

______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 06, 2017, 11:53:23 AM
Your new ones are marvelous :-*
With the unmanned one, will you participate in the Drone/UAV/Unmanned GB? Welcome if you do...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 09, 2017, 07:22:22 AM
Thanks Tophe. Actually, a notion of an entry for the Drone/UAV/Unmanned GB prompted all my current Wildcat silliness. But now, the whole flying bomb conversion convept seems a bit tame. Meanwhile ...

FM-5A Wildcat - Rationalizing 'SuperCat' Production

Outwardly, the FM-3A and FM-5 Wildcats were impossible to distinguish from the base FM-3. The FM-3A featured minor equipment changes and, mid-production, switched to the 1,350 hp R-1820-72W engine with water injection. [1] The FM-5 was to be the ultimate 'SuperCat' but things did not go as planned.

The FM-5 was to have a higher-powered water-injected engine - the 1,425 hp R-1820-74W. However, the Bureau of Aeronautics chose to redirect all Cyclone '-74W engines to Ryan for FR-2 Fireball mixed-power fighters. As a result, the FM-5s ordered were all delivered as R-1820-72W-powered FM-5As. The new designation was largely unwarranted as these fighters would be all but indistinguishable from late-production FM-3As.

[Top] Eastern FM-5A Wildcat flown by Ens RA Collier of VC-94, USS Shamrock Bay, August 1945. [2]

Eastern Aircraft had been assigned the task of providing a night-fighter derivative of the FM-5A capable of protecting CVEs and accompanying ships of their Task Forces during Operation Coronet. [3] To that end, a single FM-3A airframe was quickly rebuilt as the XFM-5N 'NightCat' prototype. As the XFM-5N, this FM-3A fuselage was fitted with non-folding wings intended for an FM-5P photo-recon conversion.

It was planned for the production FM-5N to feature a completely new style of wing-folding. In place of the patented, rear-folding wings of previous FM-series fighters, the new wings would fold inward from roughly half-span. This would allow for a radar pod being mounted on the starboard wing tip with an aerodynamically-matching fuel drop tank on the port wing tip. [4] These were wing tip fittings were tested on the non-folding wings of the XFM-5N (fold lines being indicated with white paint).

______________________________

[1] For reasons known only to itself, the Bureau of Aeronautics chose to apply a new sub-type designation to the FM-3A when minor equipment changes were made. However, no designation change was made when a new, water-injected engine model was adopted.

[2] Ensign Richard Collier scored two confirmed kills and three damaged before being shot down in late November 1945. Hit by Japanese AA fire while strafing the Sasebo Naval Air Station on Kyushu, Collier's FM-5A came down in Sasebo Ko and quickly sank in that inner harbour. Ens Collier's body was not recovered until after Japan surrendered.

[3] Operation Coronet was the second stage of Operation Downfall, the Allied invasion of Japan. During stage one - Operation Olympic - it became clear that radar-carrying F6F-5N Hellcats from 'full-sized' carriers were quite capable of defending entire TFs from night attacks.
______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 09, 2017, 07:25:47 AM
Need to possibly put the Brewster Buffalo through the same development path... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on December 10, 2017, 04:20:09 PM
I really liked the turboprop whaleshark.  Looks like it would need to sit a bit nose high though, with the gear a bit shorter, perhaps.  Where would the arresting hook be located?  That one looks like contra-rotating props would be right at home up front.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 13, 2017, 08:20:12 AM
Thanks Folks!

Tophe: I thought the unmanned Wildcat was a bit too 'vanilla' for the GB. But now GTX has me thinking  >:D

John: Cheers. You're probably quite right about that nose gear. I had thought about a jump strut (with an attachment for catapult strop) ... but I wasn't sure how far back jump struts for carrier aircraft go. As for arresting gear, I'd imagined the hook be attached to the same fuselage frame as the forward engine mount. So, just behind the main undercarriage ... an alien idea for Grumman but not so much for Eastern  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on December 13, 2017, 10:52:20 AM
Unmanned Wildcat can be USN46 "cruise missile".  Even used in Korea.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 14, 2017, 02:03:49 AM
Unmanned Wildcat can be USN46 "cruise missile".  Even used in Korea.

Or even just for target practice in a bright colour scheme.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 14, 2017, 05:54:13 AM
Unmanned Wildcat can be USN46 "cruise missile".  Even used in Korea.
Could be good testbeds for systems intended for operational Loon and Regulus cruise missiles.  It would be interesting to see one launched from a surfaced submarine using RATO bottles.  It could not be as spectacular as the first Loon launch from a surfaced submarine when the rocket boosters exploded on ignition and set off the missile's fuel.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 14, 2017, 01:50:21 PM
It is funny how we discover lots of "good reasons" when we look for them. ;)
(Outside our dreams, this is more difficult, to justify expenses to the taxpayers... :icon_crap: )
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 17, 2017, 05:59:00 AM
Excellent unmanned suggestions folks. But, before those concepts, back to the meat-puppet variants ... First, an overview of the SuperCat lineage.

A Summary of Eastern SuperCat Variants

FM-3 - Refined FM-2 Wildcat with all-around vision bubble canopy
 - XFM-3: Prototype conversion from 'ridge-backed' Eastern FM-2 airframe
 - FM-3 : 1,350 hp Wright R-1820-62 Cyclone, effectively 'bubbled' FM-2
 - FM-3A: 1,350 hp Wright R-1820-62, minor internal equipment changes
 - FM-3A: Mid-production switch to water injected 1,350 hp R-1820-72W
 - FM-3B: [Project] Water-injected R-1820-74W engine, redesignated FM-5

FM-4 - [Project] Planned variant with 1,500 hp P&W R-1860-20W Super Hornet*
 - XFM-4: Sole prototype (created from FM-2 Wildcat components), abandoned
 -- * Fan-cooled engine, 4-bladed Aeroproducts propeller with large spinner

FM-5 - Intended as improved, more powerful FM-3A Wildcat variants
 - FM-5 : [Project] 1,425 hp water-injected Wright R-1820-74W Cyclone radial
 -- FM-5 production abandoned when BuAer redirected '-74W engines to Ryan
 - FM-5A: Production version with minor differences from late-model FM-3As
 - FM-5A(FN): 'French Navy', postwar export designation, French radio fit
 - FM-5B: [Project] Lightweight FM-5A (small R/T, etc.), cancelled at VJ
 - FM-5C: [Project] Similar to FM-5B, wing-root life raft store, cancelled
 - FM-5D: [Project] FM-5A 2-seat trainer, aka FM-5DC, designation reassigned
 - FM-5D: [Project] Fan-cooled Wright R-1820-84W, spinner, cancelled at VJ
 - FM-5E: Postwar conversion to better-suite FM-5A for use by USN Reserves*
 -- * FM-E lightened/reduced armour to allow for electric gear retraction
 -- NB: Contrary to widespread reports, the 'E' in FM-5E wasn't for Export
 - FM-5F: [Project] Designation held for potential British-engined variant
 -- 'FM-5F': Unofficial French designation for the postwar export FM-5A(FN)
 - FM-5K: Post-war drone conversion of FM-3A/FM-5A, unmanned aerial targets
 - FM-5N: [Project] Radar-equipped night fighter derivative of FM-5A
 -- XFM-5N: 'NightCat' prototype (FM-3A conversion), non-folding wings
 - FM-5P: Photo-reconnaissance production-line conversion of FM-5A airframes
 - FM-5Z: 'Z' for Administrative, cover designation for postwar flying bombs
 -- FM-5Z-1: 1945 FM-3A conversion to unmanned decoy/flying bomb (500 lb HE)
 -- FM-5Z-2: 1946 pilot-optional FM-5A unmanned decoy/flying bomb conversion
 -- FM-5Z-3: [Project] Pilotless conversion variant, no details recorded
 -- FM-5Z-4: 1949 FM-5E conversion to unmanned decoy/flying bomb (1,000 lb HE)

FM-6 - The FM-6 series designation was applied to two, unrelated concepts
 - FM-6 : [Project] FM-3A derivative with 4 x 20 mm cannons, not ordered
 - XFM-6: 'Whale Shark' FM-3 conversion, GE TG-100 turboprop trials aircraft
 - NB: Proposed 'Turbine-Propeller Escort Fighter' received no designation

FM-7 -  Cover designation for flying-bomb conversions of F3F-4 and FM-1
 - FM-7: Also known by another cover designation, 'glide-bomb' LBM-1

FM-8 - Cover designation for flying-bomb conversions of FM-2 airframes
 - FM-8: Also known by another cover designation, 'glide-bomb' LBM-2

F2M - [Project] Higher-powered, 'bubble-topped' photo-recon development
 - XF2M : Prototype FM-2 conversion, 1 x P&W R-2000-1 twin-row, abandoned
 - F2M-1: Planned production version, 1,450 hp P&W R-2000-2, not ordered

F3M - Original USN designation for the 'bubble-topped' FM-2 derivative
 XF3M - Prototype conversion redesignated as XFM-3 before work completed

F4M - [Project] Eastern Aircraft production version of F8F-1 Bearcat
 - XF4M : Construction begun, work on XF6M halted shortly after VJ Day
 - F4M-1: Planned production version, as F8F-1 except for minor details

F5M - [Project] Rocket-powered fleet defence interceptor, not ordered
 - XF5M-1: 'KamiCat' anti-kamikaze prototype, flown only as a glider
 - F5M-1 : Not ordered, rocket engine unready, original concept flawed

F6M-1 - [Project] 'EscortCat', FM-5A replacement based on F4M Bearcat
 - F6M (I) : Original concept, lightened F4M airframe with R-1820-72W
 - F6M (II): Revised concept incorporating larger-area FM-5A wings
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 17, 2017, 06:02:24 AM
My next backstory installment got too long (even by my usual, windy standards). So, I'm going plug in an overview here:

Export SuperCats

The first export SuperCats were lend-lease aircraft for the Royal Navy. The Fleet Air Arm had taken on FM-2s as their Wildcat Mk.VI. The FM-3A became the Wildcat Mk.VII and FM-5A the Wildcat Mk.VIIA but very few British 'bubble tops' had been received by VJ Day.

The difficulty in supplying Britain with SuperCats sprang mostly from Wright being unable to produce sufficient Cyclone engines at adequately high quality. To ease this supply problem, there was some discussion of providing the RN with engineless airframes which were to be fitted with British-made powerplants in the UK. [1] However, this scheme was abandoned with the end of the war in Europe (with B-17 production winding up, it was assumed that Wright would be able to meet Cyclone demand).

'E' is not for 'Export' - SuperCats for the Weekend Warriors

With the surrender of Japan, [2] the US Navy was suddenly awash with SuperCats. Production contracts for further FM-5As were quickly cancelled. While the future of US Navy CVEs was being decided, some FM-5As were reconditioned to provide realistic fighter-trainers for returning naval aviators joining the USN Reserves.

The revised FM-5E could not be outwardly distinguished from an FM-5A but there was one change much welcomed by pilots. The hated main undercarriage manual hand crank was replaced by an electric motor. Powered undercarriage retraction was finally possible due to other weight savings - mainly reduction of armour plating, miniaturization of equipment, and replacement of some steel components with aluminum substitutes. These changes would also be incorporated into postwar export SuperCats.

Eastern SuperCats Abroad

The FM-5E itself was exported to Uruguay where it served the Aviación Naval as a land-based fighter from 1948 to mid-1957. The Uruguayan Armada had hoped to procure a surplus CVE but this never happened. The Armada de Chile also expressed interest in the FM-5E to equip a surplus CVE. However, when Chilean efforts to purchase an escort carrier failed, the Armada de Chile lost its interest in SuperCats.

Another export SuperCat operator had succeeded in obtaining an escort carrier. France bought the ex-Royal Navy escort carrier HMS Biter in 1945. Renamed the Dixmude, this CVE soon became the Marine Nationale's aviation training carrier. At the beginning of 1947, refurbished ex-USN FM-5As arrived. Re-designated FM-5A(FN) by the BuAer, these Wildcats combined features of the FM-5E rebuild with French-specified components.

The MN's Aéronavale had established a small section for carrier-borne fighters within its Escadrille d'instruction de l' École navale (EIEN) using loaned RN Wildcat Mk.VIs. These were replaced by FM-5Fs which also embarked upon the Dixmude with the École d'aviation embarquée (EAE). This was meant to be a temporary arrangement - with the Dixmude eclipsed by a 'full-sized' carrier embarking F6F-5 Hellcat trainers in place of FM-5Fs. [3] When that planned was realized, the plan was for the Dixmude to become an auxiliary transport ship (including for aircraft meant for French Coloniale service).

Then, events intervened and the career of the Aéronavale SuperCats took an unexpected turn. But that is another story ...

_____________________

[1] The proposed powerplant was the Bristol Sagittarius, a single-row 9-cylinder radial derived from the twin-row Centaurus IX. Due to the urgency assigned to the Centaurus, Bristol was unable to dedicate sufficient resources to perfecting the Sagittarius. Bench-test examples of the Sagittarius I proved incapable of generating more than 1,260 hp at full boost.

[2] Allied planner had hoped that the successful occupation of Kyushu would make Operation Coronet unnecessary. However, with Japan fortifying Honshu against the inevitable invasion, it was decided to make demonstration of new US atomic power. On 11 April 1946, an atom bomb was dropped on Kochi, a port city on the island of Shikoku. Authorities in Tokyo discounted reports of the Kochi strike as hysteria or propaganda. On 20 April, the second atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on Honshu itself. The unconditional surrender of Japan followed on the 24 April 1946.

[3] The Marine Nationale's Aéronavale had the F6F-5 Hellcats of 11F in service aboard Arromanches (with the SB2C-5 Helldivers of 3F) and the F4U-7/AU-1 Corsairs of 14F aboard the Bois Belleau.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 19, 2017, 07:54:30 AM
French SuperCats - the Aéronavale takes its 'FM-5F' to War

French FM-5F SuperCats of the École d'aviation embarquée (EAE) served aboard the CVE Dixmude for practicing catapult launches and landing on of Aéronavale aircraft at sea. In Marine Nationale service, Dixmude acted both as a training carrier and as an auxiliary fleet supply ship. The 'Dix' left Marseilles for her third supply mission to Indochine in early November 1953. This time, instead of decktop cargo, the Dixmude embarked 10 Aéronavale SuperCats which would continuing pilot training during this cruise. [1]

By the time the Dixmude arrived in port at Hai-Phong, Armee de l'Air F8F-1 Bearcats of GC 2/22 'Languedoc' were forward-basing from Hai-Phong's Cat Bi airport to the airfield at Diên Biên Phu on the boundary between the Laos and Tonkin protectorates. with Aéronavale SuperCats now available in Indochine, it was agreed that the FM-5Fs would take over GC 2/22's role at Cat Bi. [2]

Bataille de Diên Biên Phu

The Viet Minh assaults on the Diên Biên Phu airstrip changed all of that. With the runways degraded by constant enemy mortar attacks, the Bearcats were sometimes prevented from taking off. The shorter take-off run of the SuperCat could ensure top cover for the French paras on the ground. Accordingly, GC 1/22 (which had been recuperating at Bach Mai airfield, Ha-Noi) transferred some of its Bearcats to Cat Bi while the EAE SuperCats were flown into the warzone of Diên Biên Phu.

Once at Diên Biên Phu, the SuperCat flight was redesignated la flottille de chasse 13F. For the most part, the FM-5Fs were flown with minimal fuel giving them spectacular take-off performance. No underwing racks had even been fitted to Aéronavale SuperCats so the 13F fighters were restricted to strafing attacks using their four 50-calibre wing guns. A field modification also converted a pair of the SuperCats to the 'photo-reco' role as 'RFM-5Fs' (with belly-mounted cameras using components taken from recce pods used by RF8Fs). [3]

The FM-5Fs performed surprisingly well in very tough conditions but, by the time Diên Biên Phu fell to the Viet Minh in May 1954, two SuperCats had been lost in the air and three more were destroyed on the ground. None of the surviving FM-5Fs remained airworthy when the airfield was over-run.

[Top] FM-5F/FM-5A(FN) of flottille 13F as flown from Diên Biên Phu airstrip. SuperCat 13F-31 was shot down during a strafing run along Route Provinciale 41 in early April 1954. Note that the original unit markings have been overpainted - obscuring the EAE badge on the cowling and applying '13F' over the individual aircraft number.

¡SuperGato! - The Eastern FM-5A in Uruguayan Naval Service

In 1948, two different Grumman designs were delivered to the Uruguayan Armada - the Eastern TBM-1 Avenger and the FM-5E SuperCat. Priority was given to getting the Avenger into service as patrol aircraft. So, the ten Uruguayan SuperCats did not become operational until early 1949. [4] The SuperCats were stationed at Base Aeronaval No.2 de Laguna del Sauce but the Armada still hoped to procure a surplus CVE from the US or Britain (for which ROU.1 Capitán Atilio Frigerio was being reserved). [5]

Unfortunately for the Aviación Naval, ROU.1 never happened (the budget going to base expansion instead). The FM-5Es spent most of their careers escorting the 'Avengeros' or performing their own sovereignty patrols over the Rio Plate. Anti-guerrilla exercise in Uruguay's interior were also performed (primarily for interoperability development among Uruguay's modest armed forces).

The Uruguayan SuperCats served operationally until the middle of 1957 when the seven surviving FM-5Es were relegated to maintenance airframe status. However, in the early '60s, the moth-balled SuperCats had a partial rebirth - their bubble canopies re-appeared on the 'Super-6' rebuild program for Uruguayan AT-6s and SNJs.

(Bottom) An FM-5E of the Aviación Naval's Esquadron No.6 in 1953. This SuperCat has recently had its original US Navy dark blue paint repainted by a unique Uruguayan scheme. Note the under-sized 'AVIACIÓN NAVAL' script (FM-5Es never received the officially-prescribed script in large, black block letters).

_____________________

[1] On its first two supply runs to Indochine, the Dixmude's decks were crowded with more mundane vehicles. The ship could carry up to 15 aircraft but normally carried a mix of eight SuperCats and four Eastern TBM-1C Avengers (the latter being drawn from flottille 4F stocks).

[2] Control of the Dixmude's aircraft was transferred from Forces Maritimes en Extrême-Orient (FMEO) to Forces Aériennes en Extrême-Orient (and reporting to the Commandement-en-Chef des FAEO). Later, the SuperCats would be assigned directly to the Groupe d'Opération Nord-Ouest (GONO, under général Christian de Castries) at Diên Biên Phu.

[3] EROM 90 (Escadrille de Reconnaissance d'Outre-Mer 90) was sometimes applied to the two camera-equipped of SuperCats. This over-blown term was probably intended to mislead the Viet Minh opponent as to aerial strength at the Diên Biên Phu airfield.

[4] At this stage, the Uruguayan naval air arm was still known as the Servicio de Aeronáutica de la Armada (SAA or Fleet Aeronautics Service). The name was changed to Aviación Naval (AN) in 1951 and again to Aviación Naval Uruguaya (ANU) in 1955.

[5] The 'ROU' prefix is for República Oriental del Uruguay. ROU.1 was to be named after capitán Atilio Frigerio, the first Uruguayan military pilot.

[6] It had been hoped that the Super-6 would later adopt the FM-5E's Cyclone radials and motor-mounts as well. However, such an ambitious re-engining program proved beyond the capabilities of the ANU's aircraft maintenance facility.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 19, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
finsrin: Regarding Korea. In this slightly alternative timeline, the Soviets have more time to regroup after VE Day. As a result, the Red Army not only occupies Manchuria but also drives into Japanese Chosen as far south as Keijo (Seoul). After US troops land at Fusan (Busan), the Soviet advance is paused and Red Army troops later retire to the 38th Parallel as agreed in General Order No. 1. From that point on, Korea is a stand-off between the Soviets and the US ... but there is no Korean Conflict.

The altered timeline also gives the Soviets time to pursue their claims against other Japanese possessions. Soviet Marines occupy the entire Kurile Island chain and Karafuto. Then, in April 1946, the Soviets launch amphibious assaults against Japanese troops on Hokkaido. Initial landings are at Mashige (on the west coast) and Esashi (of the north coast).

The Japanese military is able to halt the Red Army's advance at Sapporo. However, Sapporo and neighbouring Otaru are heavily bombed by the V-VS operating from Plastun in Primorsky (only 200 miles away in the Soviet Far East). With losses mounting and complete capitulation rumoured to be imminent, Japanese resolve begins to falter. a week after the 24 April 1946 surrender of Japan, the US begins landings on Hokkaido - amphibious at Hakodate and airborne operations at Urakawa and Kushiro. By the end of April, a local Russo-Japanese ceasefire has been agreed and US forces stand down.

In later negotiations, it is agreed that the Soviet Union will maintain control of the Kuriles and Karafuto. By agreement, both US and Soviet forces are completely withdrawn from Hokkaido by 31 Dec 1947. Thereby, a crisis is avoided and a much-feared first 'hot' encounter of the looming Cold War is dodged in northern Japan.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 19, 2017, 01:46:02 PM
My uncle, who was a pilot of Bearcat in Indochina, may have liked the French SuperCat, thanks! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2017, 07:51:31 AM
Thanks Tophe! And, as you had suggested, here is my SuperCat entry into the Drone/UAV/unmanned whatever GB ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7632.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7632.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 21, 2017, 12:45:12 PM
Thanks to YOU! And, as you will probably win, I require 1% of the $billion you will get! (joke...) ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 23, 2017, 07:45:20 AM
I see a sharing of those inevitable winnings to be most fair  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 23, 2017, 08:27:42 AM
No backstory here ... just a late-production-MiG-21/MiG-29 mash-up.

This version has enlarged outer wing panels with wingtip rails but retains the original Tumansky R-13-300 powerplant. Re-engining with a single, more powerful Klimov RD-33 would be an upgrade option (hence the taller tailplane).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 24, 2017, 02:24:56 AM
Interesting
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on December 27, 2017, 08:29:59 PM
And lovely! :-* (if this wasn't a warplane)... ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on December 31, 2017, 06:18:03 PM
Looks fantastic and has the perfect camo for this markings :
 :D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2018, 07:31:26 AM
Nice one Alex! It does look good in those LanceR markings   ;)
____________________________________

BTW, here are my entries for the Drone/UAV/unmanned whatever GB

Missile without a Man in it!  http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7661.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7661.0)

Eastern Aircraft Wildcat Drones  http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7632.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7632.0)

Brewster's Bomb  http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7649.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7649.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on January 04, 2018, 01:31:57 PM
Loving the MiG-21/29 mashup!  It does look as though it wants a bigger engine (or perhaps a couple of the current one?).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 05, 2018, 06:43:18 AM
Thanks John. For engines, I was going for a follow-on to the MiG-21-97 and LanceR but with an RD-33 option. So, the idea was a single RD-33 companion to the twin-engined MiG-29. Not so plausible but fun to do  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 05, 2018, 01:21:20 PM
Not so plausible but fun to do  :D
The fun is not only in making the drawing (you) but also in seeing it (us), thanks ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on January 05, 2018, 01:54:05 PM
Flowing and convincing Mig mashup. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 20, 2018, 07:22:55 AM
A quickie twin-engined racer based on Greg and Evan's suggestions about the Dora Wings TP-63E Kingcobra kit. More details here:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=kqba27638bdpok77rhq4kiip84&topic=7446.msg135317#msg135317 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=kqba27638bdpok77rhq4kiip84&topic=7446.msg135317#msg135317)



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 20, 2018, 08:34:41 AM
Revenge of the Model 3.  ;D

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-SWRxLpK/0/92d0125d/L/MODEL3-01-L.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on January 22, 2018, 09:02:06 PM
Marvelous !  :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 23, 2018, 07:30:47 AM
Cheers! And thanks for that Model 3 3-view Jon. (Amazing how many minor variations on the Model 3 theme there seems to have been -- especially in the size/arrangement of nose wheels.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2018, 07:44:59 AM
A quick take on Jon's suggestion for a US Navy A-20.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=307.msg84429#msg84429 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=307.msg84429#msg84429)

No background story other than (top) a straightforward torpedo-carrying adaptation of the A-20G, and (bottom) a revised, lightened, 2-seat torpedo bomber for carrier use. The latter has folding wings, the cockpit moved to the nose, upper fuselage cut down (for 360° turret arc), nose wheel moved forward (to enlarge bomb bay for torpedo stowage), tailhook and other carrier fittings.

I'm not sure what to call these beasts. The USN did have Havocs in service as BD-1 and BD-2s. [1] I'm guessing that the A-20G would simply become a BD-3 but the carrier version would receive a distinct designation. TB2D-1 was the RW Skypirate (Oct 1943) TB3D-1 was assigned Aug 1943 - Feb 1944 for an A-26 Invader variant. So, the shipboard Havoc's designation would depend upon delivery date.
___________________________

[1] BD-1 was a single A-20A loaned to the US Navy for target tug  tests. Eight BD-2 (A-20Bs) were used as USN/USMC high-speed target tugs.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Glanini on January 25, 2018, 11:32:40 AM
The one with the folded wing is a masterpiece, the level of detailing awesome...... :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 25, 2018, 01:31:19 PM
Any relation to the Soviet torpedo-carrying Havocs?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 25, 2018, 02:30:06 PM
 :smiley:

Of course you could always posit that construction of the heavily navalized version
woud be offloaded to someone else, so the designation would then be based on
whichever company got the contract.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on January 26, 2018, 02:04:30 AM
 :-* I love the one "without wind-screen". How do you call that in English? "faired-in canopy"? ("verrière intégrée" in French).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2018, 03:41:42 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 27, 2018, 08:14:45 AM
Thanks folks. Evan: Good eye ... I knicked the original from a sideview of a Soviet A-20G with a torpedo  ;)

Of course you could always posit that construction of the heavily navalized version
woud be offloaded to someone else, so the designation would then be based on
whichever company got the contract.

That makes sense Jon. Maybe the NAF takes over Havoc production for the USN so that El Segundo can concentrate on Invaders?

GAF N-12A Outback ('Single Nomad')

No real backstory here, just a GAF Nomad with a single PT6A turboprop instead of twin Allison 250s. The idea sprang from the realization that the N-22 Nomad was roughly the same size as a Cessna 208 Caravan. So, I thought, what about a gutsier, retractable-gear equivalent to the Caravan?

Here, I've installed the same engine from the RAAF's Pilatus PC-9/A trainer - a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-62 flat-rated at 950 shp (so, 275 shp more than the Cessna's PT6A-114A). The N-22 nose has been shortened slightly (by about the same amount as the N-24 Nomad's nose was lengthened). Other than that, it's a bog standard N-22 airframe.

I'm thinking that, in Australian Army service, this N-12A Outback could have taken over for both the Nomad and the slightly smaller Pilatus PC-6 Turbo-Porter utility types. On the civilian side, the Outback could do pretty much whatever the Caravan can ... but a bit more quickly.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on January 27, 2018, 02:57:17 PM
Nice, how about a T tail version?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 28, 2018, 03:46:43 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2018, 06:27:58 AM
More variations on the GAF Nomad theme ...

(Bottom) GAF N-32C Geelong - Also known as the Commuter, the N-32 was intended as a feederliner to replace aircraft like the de Havilland Australia Drover. As a STOL design feederliner, the N-32C Geelong 'fell between stools'. It was too small to compete with other STOL feederliners but too slow to complete with aircraft like the Cessna light twins.

The type found more acceptance as a parcel carrier - particularly as a light, nocturnal cargo aircraft. The N-32C shown here, Danish OY-JRW, found a second career as a sport parachutists' transport. With its removable cargo door and operating economy, the N-32C Geelong was better suited to this later function than to being a rather slow and underpowered feederliner.

(Top) GAF N-42A Nepal - A pressurized high-altitude derivative, the N-42A retained the N-22 Nomad's wings, powerplant, and tailplane. These were matched to an entirely new, circular-section fuselage. A lighter, narrow-track main undercarriage was introduced which retracted into fuselage-side fairings. A new, forward-retracting nose gear was also used.

The N-42A Nepal was a technical success but an economic failure. Ten (including prototype VH-NPL) were operated by Druk Air out of Kathmandu. Initially, the final three N-42As remained unsold in storage at Fisherman's Bend. Later, they flew as VIP transports in South America - one with the Peruvian Air Force, the other two with commercial operators in Chile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2018, 06:30:11 AM
Nice, how about a T tail version?

I went the bifurcation route instead  :D

The GAF Gibson was a twin-tailled variant with rear-loading. The N-23F was developed for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the rear-loading doors making it quicker and simpler to load stretchers and gurneys into the aircraft. The GAF N-23C was the standard, non-medevac cargo-carrying version of the Gibson.

The GAF N-23M was a military variant which was distinct in having an actual loading ramp (in place of simple hinged doors). The N-23M could be fitted out for medevac which dedicated mission kits but the aircraft was intended for the military utility role.

Although named for the famous and fearsome Gibson Desert, the Australian Army never adopted GAF's  Gibson moniker. Instead, the Army's N-23M was invariably referred to as a 'Twin Nomad'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 30, 2018, 04:12:57 PM

Of course you could always posit that construction of the heavily navalized version
woud be offloaded to someone else, so the designation would then be based on
whichever company got the contract.

That makes sense Jon. Maybe the NAF takes over Havoc production for the USN so that El Segundo can concentrate on Invaders?


Boeing built early model A-20s to ease Douglas production issues, so, Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. builds
the navalized Havocs alongside the Cansos and PB2Bs.

T2B-1 as the designation perhaps?, which would be appropriate on several levels as the TB-1 were
Boeing built Martin T4M.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on January 30, 2018, 06:45:32 PM
Nice, how about a T tail version?

I went the bifurcation route instead  :D

The GAF Gibson was a twin-tailled variant with rear-loading. The N-23F was developed for the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the rear-loading doors making it quicker and simpler to load stretchers and gurneys into the aircraft. The GAF N-23C was the standard, non-medevac cargo-carrying version of the Gibson.

The GAF N-23M was a military variant which was distinct in having an actual loading ramp (in place of simple hinged doors). The N-23M could be fitted out for medevac which dedicated mission kits but the aircraft was intended for the military utility role.

Although named for the famous and fearsome Gibson Desert, the Australian Army never adopted GAF's  Gibson moniker. Instead, the Army's N-23M was invariably referred to as a 'Twin Nomad'.

Now that looks so purposefully cool apophenia  :P

M.A.D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 02, 2018, 08:03:42 AM
Boeing built early model A-20s to ease Douglas production issues, so, Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd. builds
the navalized Havocs alongside the Cansos and PB2Bs.

T2B-1 as the designation perhaps?, which would be appropriate on several levels as the TB-1 were
Boeing built Martin T4M.

I love the Boeing Canada scenario. Okay, ... so instead of building B-29 fuselage mid-sections when PB2B-2 production ends in 1944, Plant 3 restarts A-20 production. Let's say, stored A-20C-BO tooling is barged up to Sea Island from Boeing Seattle. Then, BACL starts cranking out T2B-1s for the USN. And maybe Boston TB Mk VIs for RCAF Western Air Command?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2018, 08:06:03 AM
The Bureau of Aeronautics struggled to find surplus production capability for the US Navy's Douglas-designed TB2D-1 shipboard torpedo bomber. The XTB2D-1 was based on the A-20G Havoc airframe but Douglas was phasing out A-20 production at its El Segundo plant in favour of the new A-26 Invader. An enquiry to Boeing paid off. Before the end of 1944, Boeing Aircraft Canada Ltd (BACL) was scheduled to have delivered its final production PB2B-2 flying boat to the USN (the last Catalina VIB to British contracts having already been completed).

Boeing Canada was scheduled to replace flying boat production with the building B-29 fuselage centre sections for its parent company. Instead, it was arranged that BACL take on Havoc production. This plan could be brought to fruition quite quickly since Boeing held tooling for the A-20 in storage outside Seattle. [1] It was arranged for jigs and tooling to be shipped north to BACL's Plant 3 on Sea Island, BC.

Initial BACL production would be for A-20L Havocs - roughly equivalent to the in-service A-20K and RAF Boston Mk Vs. Compared with A-20Ks, these R-2600-29-powered aircraft were hybrids - retained some early-model A-20C features and having the capability to carry both US and British aerial torpedoes. No A-20Ls were ever delivered to US forces. Instead, all A-20Ls were provided to allies through Lend-Lease. The RAF was scheduled to receive the first Boston TB Mk VIs but Coastal Command preferred its Bristol Beaufighter TF.Xs.

There was no prototype Boston TB Mk VI but the first aircraft was retained by BACL for test use. The next dozen Boston TB Mk VIs went to the RAF but stayed in British Columbia. These Mk VIs replaced ancient Hampden TB Mk Is used for training by No.32 OTU (RAF) at Patricia Bay on Vancouver Island. The Boston TB Mk VI was a three-seater fitted with US-supplied perspex nose caps. Fixed armament consisted to twin forward-firing 0.50-inch Browning machineguns with another pair of 'Fifties' in a Martin dorsal turret. The 18-inch Mk XII torpedo was used for training at No.32 OTU. [2]

(Top) First production Boeing Canada Boston TB Mk VI (107850) with BACL Boston Test Unit badge on its nose. Note that only the first aircraft had the enlarged, squared-off elevators (which were found to be unnecessary).

Other than No.32 OTU, BACL Bostons were surplus to British needs. Later Bostons were diverted for use by RCAF Western Air Command. These were all 2-seat Boston TB Mk VIAs which had 'solid' noses armed with eight 0.50-inch Brownings. The TB Mk VIA retained its torpedo lugs but there is no record of operational RCAF Boston TB Mk VIAs carrying torpedoes. Assigned to No.8 (BR) Squadron at Sea Island, the RCAF TB Mk VIAs flew patrol missions. Schemes to produce dual-control trainer model Boston T Mk VIBs and cannon-armed TB Mk VICs were eclipsed by the pressing need for carrier torpedo bombers for the impending invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Boeing Canada T2B-1 for the US Navy

'Productionizing' the Douglas-designed shipboard torpedo bomber took longer. The first Sea Island-built T2B-1 was not delivered to the US Navy until July 1945. The T2B-1 was virtually identical to Douglas' XTB2D-1 prototype other than incorporating some Boston TB Mk VI components. The first T2B-1 was deliver to NAS Seattle at Sand Point Airfield where VT-70 had been formed to operate these shipboard torpedo bombers. Actual training of VT-70 took place at NAS Whidbey Island - first on A-20J Havocs on loan from the USAAF, then on actual T2B-1s as they arrived from British Columbia.

Plans were underway to develop a more advanced version - the T2B-2. This variant differed in having a more advanced defensive armament system. The T2B-1's Martin dorsal turret was to be replaced by a remotely-operated General Electric system based on that of the A-26 Invader. In place of the Invader's twin GE turrets, the T2B-2 would have only the dorsal components. The Central Fire Control System was adjusted to compensate for the 'halved' GE Mark 33 gunsight (employing only the upper half of the Invader sight). An order was placed for an XT2B-2 prototype to demonstrate the remotely-operated armament system.

T2B-1 production was proceeding slowly when the Pacific War ended in mid-August 1945. Remaining production orders for the A-20J Havoc were cut by the end of the month. US Navy contracts for the T2B-1 were cut in September 1945 as was the development contract for a prototype XT2B-2 meant to demonstrate the more advanced defensive armament system. A final dozen semi-completed T2B-1s were delivered to the US Navy but went almost immediately into storage before scrapping. And that seemed to be the end of the Boeing Canada Havoc story.

All production contracts for Boeing Canada-built A-20L Havocs [3] were cancelled in late August 1945. As Lend-Lease aircraft, all RCAF Boston TB Mk VIAs were to be returned to the US (where most would be scrapped before the year was out). Contracts for USN T2B-1s were amended in Sept 1945 while the development contracts for the XT2B-2 prototype were cancelled outright. Twenty near-completed T2B-1s were finished and delivered to the US Navy by the end of Oct 1945. Those aircraft went directly into storage and the career of the 'Sea Havocs' seemed to be at an end.

Post-WW2 Use of the Boeing Canada 'TBs'

With the end of the Lend-Lease arrangement, the RCAF lost most of its land-based maritime patrol capability - not only the Boston TB Mk VIAs had to be returned but also those Lockheed Venturas and Consolidated Liberators which Canada was unwilling to pay for. In the heady days immediately following the end of the war, most of the RCAF patrol fleet was eliminated. Boeing Canada was also at a loss with the completion or cancellation of all of its production contracts. BACL was also left with large stocks of semi-completed T2B-1 components. In early 1946, Boeing proposed that the most complete 'Sea Havocs' be finished as RCAF maritime patrol aircraft.

The first Boeing Boreal Mk.1MR for the RCAF was a hybrid of Boston VI and T2B-1 features. The fixed wings were those of the Boston, while the fuselage was based on that of the carrier aircraft. The forward fuselage fuel tank of the T2B-1 was eliminated, allowing a third crew position directly behind the pilot. That third crew member operated the ASV (Air-to-Surface-Vessel) radar - a US AN/APS-3 (ASD-1) set. The radar radome was retractable - occupying, when retracted, what would have been the forward section of a Boston's bomb-bay.

The Boreal Mk.1MR were assigned to the newly-formed No.407 (Maritime Reconnaissance) Squadron based at Comox, BC. [4] Later, the terminology would be changed to 'Maritime Patrol' and the Boeings were redesignated Boreal Mk.1MP. The aircraft performed well but were really too cramped for the maritime patrol role. Despite this rather serious limitation, a naval variant of the Boreal was also devised for use by the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Boeing Boreal Mk.2 for the RCN was essentially the same as the RCAF Mk.1 but re-introduced the folding wings of the T2B-1 and featured ASW equipment. This included a retractable MAD 'stinger' in the tailcone and extended nacelles with aft-launched sonobuoys. Like the RCAF Boreal Mk.1, the Navy's Mk.2 were equipped as maritime patrol aircraft. However, the Boreal Mk.2 had catapult lugs allowing it to operate from aircraft carriers. At that point, the RCN's shipboard ASW requirement was being fulfilled by its Grumman Avengers and the Navy saw no need for twin-engined carrier aircraft.

The Boreal Mk.2A was a short-term conversion fitted with the Avenger's lightweight AN/APS-4 (ASH) radar. Although slight, that ASV's performance loss was deemed unacceptable and benefits were marginal. With the ASD-1 set re-installed, the test aircraft was returned to Mk.2 standard.

(Bottom) Boeing Boreal Mk.2 of FRU 745 at Shearwater, Nova Scotia. Note the retracted ASD-1 radar and disabled Martin turret used as an observation cupola. For some reason, '465' has had its retractable MAD tail boom removed.

The Boreal Mk.2 flew with two RCN Fleet Requirement Unit squadrons - FRU 743 at Dartmouth, NS and, later, FRU 745 at Shearwater, NS. The Fleet Requirement Units were composite squadrons with the Boreals operating alongside the preferred, single-engined Avengers. With the Boreals, the RCN found itself flying similar aircraft to the RCAF in an identical role. In a unique division of labour, the RCN Boreal Mk.2s flew medium-range maritime patrol missions off the East Coast, while RCAF Boreal Mk.1MP were their West Coast counterparts - with detachments flying from Prince Rupert and Sea Island before being moved to RCAF Station Comox.

The Boeing Boreal was really too cramped for its patrol role. RCAF crews preferred the more capacious Lancaster 10MR while RCN crews want out of 'landman' operations altogether. The Navy crews got their wish in the RCN's 1951 re-organization of its air assets. The Navy's Boreal Mk.2s were passed on to the RCAF to back up the Boreal Mk.1 fleet. Most of the Mk.2s were stripped of useable spares (and employed as ground instructional airframes). Even so, the RCAF Boreals were living on borrowed time.

No.407 (MR) Squadron had initially fallen under Western Air Command. When WAC was disbanded in March 1947, No.407 (MP) came under 12 Wing (Comox) of North Western Air Command. NWAC was itself disbanded in August 1951 and, in the re-organization, No.407 (MP) Squadron gave up its Boreals. There were a range of replacement plans [5] but, in a final indignity, the Boreals were replaced by Beech Expeditors.

____________________________________________

[1] At the Seattle plant, Boeing had built 165 x Boston Mk.IIIA for the RAF and another 139 x A-20C-BO Havocs.

[2] There was provision for twin wing racks (for 500 lb GP bombs) but these were never fitted to TB Mk VIs.

[3] With RCAF requirements satisfied, it was planned to divert future A-20L-BOs to the Soviet Union via Alaska.

[4] No.407 (MR) initially fell under Western Air Command. When WAC was disbanded in March 1947, No.407 (MP) came under 12 Wing (Comox) of North Western Air Command

[5] One unrealized RCAF plan was to re-equip No.407 (MP) with North American Mitchell Mk.IIs and IIIs. Alas, the RCAF brass regarded VIP Mitchells as sacrosanct and there were insufficient aircraft in the photographic sections and auxiliary squadrons to replace the Boreals.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 09, 2018, 01:42:48 AM
How about some in post war civilian service - maybe for aerial survey work, water bombing, mail transport etc?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 09, 2018, 01:21:13 PM
The Boreal is lovely thanks! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 10, 2018, 07:51:27 AM
How about some in post war civilian service - maybe for aerial survey work, water bombing, mail transport etc?

Hmmm ... I considered a waterbomber but decided that the Havoc/Boreal couldn't compete with the fire-fighting Mitchells. Good suggestions, though, on survey and postal work  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 11, 2018, 03:24:55 AM
Some aircraft that did survey work in Canada were quite brightly coloured (hint, hint):

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8093/8566204860_5d3634c347_b.jpg)(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8565108287_99143deb84_b.jpg)(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-3/93-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on February 11, 2018, 06:53:00 AM
Great looking airplane this Boreal (http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/113.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2018, 08:13:25 AM
When the Pacific War ended in August 1945, Boeing Canada was working on a range of advanced projects based upon their Boston and T2B airframes. The unbuilt T2B-2 for the US Navy has already been discussed. Other projects were aimed at RCAF requirements. One proposed a 'de-navalized' T2B-1 for the land-based maritime patrol role (which would emerge in its postwar developed form as the Boeing Boreal Mk.1MR).  Another was for fully modernized Boston for anticipated use in the then-forthcoming invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The proposed Boston B Mk VIII [1] involved a series of studies in slightly different configurations. Regardless of the chosen final configuration, the Boston B Mk VIII would be a hybrid of Boston and T2B-2. The engines would either remain R-2600s or, if Ottawa decided to standardize on British powerplants, would switch to the Bristol Hercules XVII. [2] Over-target performance was to be enhanced through the use of booster turbojets. Several layouts were investigated - including a single, tail-mounted jet (3,100 de Havilland Ghost or 3,830 lbf GE J33) or twin engines (2,000 lbf Rolls-Royce Derwent Is or 2,000 lbf GE J31s). Twin jets would either be installed on the wing tips or in extended engine nacelles. [3]

Boston B Mk VIII defensive armament would be as per the T2B-2 but the forward fuselage and wings would be that of the RCAF TB Mk VIA. The upper fuselage decking was lowered with the existing Boston pilot's enclosure being replaced by a fully-blown canopy. To test the latter feature, a single Boston B Mk VIA was set aside for trials. This aircraft was fitted with a sliding canopy from a P-51D Mustang fighter. It was hoped that this airframe might also test the T2B-2-style armament installation as well but the War ended before this could be done. [4]

'Photo Ops' - A Postwar Career Change

The 'Bubble-Top' Boston B Mk VIA (which never received a distinct designation) had remained with Boeing Canada for trials but was declared surplus by the RCAF in November 1945. The following year, Boeing was approached by Vancouver-based Fairchild subsidiary, Aerial Surveys Ltd. [5] In response to this query about surplus Bostons for conversion for photo survey work, Boeing recommend the 'Bubble-Top' Boston. Aerial Surveys Ltd agreed but pressed for a quick delivery. The aircraft was pulled from 'the weeds' behind Boeing Canada's Plant 3 on Sea Island and restored.

Boeing installed a trio of Fairchild cameras - one  K-18 and two K-22s - in the Boston's bomb bays. In transit, the lens were protected by the bomb doors. On the 'run in', these doors were opened, ready for photography to begin. Photography was controlled from the former bomb-aimer's position. The former gunner's position was converted into a rear compartment for use by a camera tech when operating away from home base.

(Top) 'Bubble-Top' Boston of Aerial Surveys Ltd. Note 'totem' emblem on fin and pilot's crude 'drift gauge'.

The 'Bubble-Top' Boston entered Aerial Surveys service as CF-EZH in late August 1946. The modifications were seen as a great success ... when they worked. Aircraft performance was seen as somewhat lacking (the revised 'Bubble-Top' was lighter than a service Boston but still struggled for higher altitudes). Heating of the camera installation also had to be adjusted but the key complaints was that the crew could not reach the cameras in flight. Still, the Boston could do jobs that Aerial Surveys' Anson 552 CF-DLF (ex-RCAF Mk.V 12356) could not manage.

The Boston served with Aerial Surveys until December 1948 when it was written off at Edmonton. Flying in cold, clear weather, the last photographic flight was a complete success. However, on landing, the Boston ran into frozen slush on the runway. The nose wheel gear collapsed and the forward fuselage was kinked. The Boston was judged uneconomical to repair and struck off. The Boston's registration was transferred to a second Anson while its role was taken over by the faster, higher-flying Lockheed Lightning, CF-JJA.

A second 'Boeing Havoc' made it into the aerial survey business. Spartan Air Services of Ottawa, Ontario sourced a US Navy-surplus Boeing T2B-1 from a scrap dealer in Oregon. Life the Aerial Surveys aircraft, cameras were fitted in the bomb bays (although, in this installation, the bomb bays were fixed). As CF-HMK, the T2B-1 flew out of Rockcliffe airfield. Despite appearances, the Spartan 'T2B-1P' was a two-seater. The rear position was occupied by the navigator who also operated as a camera tech. However, actual photography operations were all handled by pilot - a rather inefficient arrangement.

(Bottom) Spartan Air Services T2B-1 in RCAF trainer yellow with nacelles sprayed black (to camouflage exhaust staining). CF-HMK was scheduled to be repainted in silver dope but this was never done.

Spartan, having tried the T2B-1, P-38 Lightning, and Sea Hornet, concluding that the de Havilland Mosquito best suited its photographic needs. CF-HMK was offered to the Ontario Provincial Air Service as a potential water-bomber conversion. This never happened and the T2B-1 mouldered away behind Hangar 2 at Rockcliffe airport. The Spartan T2B-1 was finally sold for scrap at some point in the mid-'50s.

_______________________________________

[1] The 'missing' Boston TB Mk VII was a re-engining study for the Boston TB Mk VIA

[2] The more powerful Bristol Centaurus was also considered but, ultimately, rejected as requiring too much structural work to strengthen the Boston nacelles.

[3] A third option of mid-span jets was rejected early on due to an excessive drag penalty revealed during NRC wind tunnel tests.

[4] Booster jet installations were to be trialled on a second Boston TB VIA airframe but this was never done.

[5] Technically, Aerial Surveys Ltd was jointly owned by British Fairey Air Surveys and camera-supplier, Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc of Los Angeles.

_______________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2018, 08:17:45 AM
Argentinian COIN - the FMA IA 55 Pülü

In 1962, Córdoba-based DINFIA (Dirección Nacional de Fabricación e Investigación Aeronáutica) began studies for counter-insurgency aircraft to satisfy a Fuerza Aérea Argentina requirement for a new avión de ataque y apoyo cercano (attack and close support aircraft).  The two most promising concepts were selected for refinement. The FAA's preference was for a twin-engined design - the AX-2 (Ataque Experimental 2). However, budgetary constraints forced the service to select its second choice - the less expensive, single-engined AX-1.

Initially, the Ataque Experimental 1 was presented in two forms. DINFIA pushed the larger AX-1A which was powered by a 930 shp Turbomeca Bastan VI-A turboprop (in common with the IA 50 Guaraní II utility transport). However, the slightly smaller Astazou-powered AX-1B was chosen for development. DINFIA's Fábrica Militar de Aviones constructed a prototype AX-1 as the FMA IA 55. Powered by a French 840 shp Turbomeca Astazou XIV, the IA 55's crew of two sat in tandem beneath a side-hinged canopy. A 'tail-dragger' arrangement was chosen for short-field performance.

An FAA technical assessment team tested the prototype IA 55 at Córdoba before making a range of recommended changes. Most critical to the FMA design team, the FAA's critique recommended the adoption of a tricycle undercarriage. That, and a demand for modern ejection seats for the crew, required a major redesign of the IA 55. FMA then put forward its proposed IA 55A, which adopted a tricycle landing gear and lightweight 'extraction' seats for the crew. These modest changes did not satisfy the FAA's assessment team.

A more radical re-design was the IA 55B Pülü. [1] This design had the IA 55A's lengthened forward fuselage but also introduced a completely new rear fuselage and T-tailled empennage. The cockpit section was lengthened to accommodate twin Martin-Baker ejection seats, the rear seat being slightly raised to improve forward vision. The outer wing panels were also revised, reducing the IA 55A's leading edge sweep for c/g reasons. The FAA approved the IA 55B Pülü design and the type entered full-scale production at Córdoba in 1966.

Reality Check: The FMA IA 55 was a real project. When I first heard about the IA 55, I assumed that it would look like a single-engined Pucará. Then I saw a 3-view drawing. Other than that distinctive Astazou intake, the IA 55 would have looked nothing like the Pucará. My 'first prototype' is basically what the FMA plan looked like. My 'IA 55B' is closer to what I'd initially imagined for the IA 55 project.

___________________________

[1]  Pülü means 'Wasp' in Mapuche, an indigenous language from south-western Argentina.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: john_matthews129 on February 20, 2018, 11:55:28 AM
That has to be one really wide bubble canopy on the Boston.  Really like it though!  Perhaps a smaller bubble on the left half of the fuselage?  Or two, one for the pilot and another for the co-pilot, sort of like on the Douglas Mix-Master. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 21, 2018, 01:36:28 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 23, 2018, 05:58:39 AM
That has to be one really wide bubble canopy on the Boston.  Really like it though!  Perhaps a smaller bubble on the left half of the fuselage?  Or two, one for the pilot and another for the co-pilot, sort of like on the Douglas Mix-Master.

John: Actually, the A-20 Havoc didn't have a co-pilot (that was one of the benefits of its planned replacement - the A-26 Invader). Still, you're right about that bubble canopy needing to be wide.

At its widest point, the P-51D fuselage was only 34-35" (0.86-0.88 m) while the A-20 was 49" (1.24 m). Both types had fuselages that tapered inward towards the top so the measurement across the canopy sills would be narrower. (Does anyone know the A-20 fuselage's exact width across the sill at the top of Station 37? Unfortunately, AN 01-40AL-2 doesn't give cockpit dimensions.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 23, 2018, 06:42:57 AM

John: Actually, the A-20 Havoc didn't have a co-pilot


As shown well here:

(http://olive-drab.com/images/id_bomber_a20_06_700.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 24, 2018, 02:13:46 AM
Lancaster Plus - Boeing Canada's belated RCAF MPA contender

With Boreal production ended, Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd found itself primarily engaged as an MRO facility. One RCAF contract was won to refit and refurbish wartime Canso amphibians for the SAR role. Ironically, few of the airframes involved were Boeing-built - most had been Canso As constructed by Boeing Canada's Montreal-based rival, Canadian Vickers (by that time, renamed Canadair). That contract kept the doors open on Sea Island but head office in Seattle was getting nervous about its Canadian operation.

Boeing was well aware that Canadair was studying advanced, long-range anti-submarine warfare aircraft to replace the wartime Lancasters. Boeing Canada itself had submitted ASW studies to AVM EW Stedman at the RCAF Research and Development Branch. [1] Those concepts had been rejected and Boeing Canada began studying another concept involving modernizing the existing RCAF Lancaster 10MR fleet.

Boeing was also well aware of tests underway in Eastern Canada of RCAF Lancasters converted to test turbojet engines. In both cases, the Lancs had their outboard Merlins replaced by Canadian-made jet engines. Meanwhile, in the UK, Lancasters and Lancastrians had been converted to trial twin Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets. This was the same engine type meant to enter service with RCAF Canadair-built CL-30 Silver Star jet trainers. Boeing Canada management sensed an opportunity.

'Two Turning, Two Burning' - Boeing Canada's Chimeric Lancaster concept

Boeing Canada placed a formal request the RCAF for the loan of Lancaster Mk.10-O testbed, FM205. [2] This was declined - although unflown as a jet trial aircraft, FM205 remained on loan to Avro Canada's Orenda Gas Turbine Division. Nor, RCAF Staff hastened to add, did the Air Force have any other Lancasters which it could spare. Fortunately, Boeing Canada had already anticipated this outcome and begun making enquiries outside the country. Feelers put out to Vickers-Armstrong paid off.

Lancaster 'half-jet' conversions in the UK dated back to 1945. [3] Just after the war, Vickers converted Lancaster C.I VH742 to twin Nenes on behalf of Rolls-Royce. That aircraft was later returned from Hucknall to have its Nenes replaced with new Rolls-Royce Tay turbojets. The Tay installation was complete by August 1949 but was never flown (Rolls-Royce had shifted its attention to the Avon). Might Boeing Canada be interested in VH742? 'Yes', was the quick reply!

Broken down for shipment by sea, Lancaster C.I VH742 arrived at Boeing's Sea Island plant in late July 1950 ... complete with its original Rolls-Royce Nene installation. In the meantime, Boeing Canada design staff had been collecting other components for its mixed-power Lancaster concept. Streamlined Lancastrian nose and tail fairings arrived from the UK well before VH742. [4] A scrapped, Victory-built Lancaster centre section had already been sourced from a farmer in central Alberta. The latter formed a test rig for the trial installation of much larger Wright R-3350-32 radial engines in the inboard positions (even de-rated, the R-3350s were much more powerful than the original Merlins). [5]

Boeing Aircraft of Canada enters the Jet Age (sort of)

By the time VH742 rolled back out of Boeing's Plant 3 as CF-ARM, the Lancaster had undergone a major transformation. As expected, she was fitted with inboard R-3350 radials inboard with Nenes underslung outboard. The 'spare' Lancastrian fairings had been converted into new crew positions. In the tail, the rear observer would lie prone on a 'couch' with an unobstructed view of the sea below and behind. Up front, the Lancastrian nose baggage door 'lid' was replaced by a single glazed cap for the bomb-aimer. Behind him sat the navigator in a new, B-17-style position (complete with overhead sighting bubble). [6]

As expected, CF-ARM flew "like a rocket". Flying solely on the twin Wright radials, performance was at least as good as the RCAF's standard, 4-engined Lancaster 10MR. More of a novelty for pilots was the speed and lack of vibration that came with flying on the Nene jets alone. Detail work was needed on the R-3350 installation - to improve engine cowling - and it was suggested that the slightly higher all-up weight may require substitution of the sturdier main undercarriage from the Avro Lincoln bomber. That would prove prophetic.

On 13 April 1951, CF-ARM was returning to Sea Island after an uneventful test flight along the West Coast of Vancouver Island with RCAF observers on board. Landing in gusty conditions, the starboard main gear started to began to retract. The damage was done by the ground-loop that followed. The starboard wing tip dug in to the soggy turf alongside the runway. The starboard Nene installation ended up taking much of the aircraft's weight while the starboard prop blades also took a beating. Fortunately, the portside undercarriage held.

Onboard RCAF officials praised the crew's reactions in their report but Ottawa took a harder line. The RCAF Brass didn't appreciate Boeing Canada going behind their backs - as they viewed the overseas purchase of VH742. The April 1951 accident gave the Department of National Defence a perfect excuse to distance themselves even further from the Boeing Canada concept. Ottawa made clear to Boeing Canada that no funding, support, or other RCAF involvement should be expected in future. RCAF planners also briefed against the Boeing Canada proposal in Parliamentary committees during the following year. April's minor ground-loop incident grew into 'proof' of the waste and danger inherent in rebuild programs. The politicians bought it ... and then bought the RCAF lovely, new P2V-7 Neptunes. [7]

__________________________

[1] Boeing Aircraft of Canada put forward two distinct ASW concepts for study by the RDB. The 'Budget Model' was a comparatively simple rebuild of available USAF-surplus B-17G airframes (a second variant of which was also put forward to bolster RCAF SAR capabilities). The second concept involved a major rebuild of surplus US B-29 airframes. Neither concept appealled to the RCAF RDB.

[2] FM205 had its outboard Merlins replaced by Chinook engines. FM205 never flew in this configuration because Avro Canada had already moved on to 'productionize' the Orenda turbojet.

[3] Single-jet test installations in Lancasters (and other bomber types) dated back to the war years.

[4] VH742 itself had already been converted to 'Nene-Lancastrian' standard (as had PD167 and VH737).

[5] Boeing Canada reasoned that de-rated Wright R-3350s should not over-tax the Lancaster since the  centre section had been originally designed for the Vulture-powered Avro Manchester.

[6] Observation blisters were also planned for the rear fuselage sides but never installed. Likewise, the wooden wingtips were to be replaced with metal extensions complete with bulbous tip fuel tanks.

[7] Deliveries of RCAF Neptunes didn't begin until 1955 ... which resulted in a modest degree of satisfaction for Boeing Canada. Desparately short of spares for the aged RCAF Lancaster Mk.10MR fleet, the Department of National Defence had to spend top-dollar to buy the stored wreck of CF-ARM for parts.

__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on February 24, 2018, 02:05:51 PM
Interesting... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 24, 2018, 06:27:29 AM
Forgotten Fokker Fighters - the Fokker D.25 Story

In 1938, Fokker chief designer Dr-Ing Erich Schatzki began work on a new 'jockey' fighter. The scheme was intended to make use of as many components as possible from the advanced, all-metal D.23 (D.XXIII) push-pull fighter. [1] The new light fighter concept sprang, in part, from Fokker's marketing department which saw potential for a sale to the French Armée de l'Air.

The initial concept was conceived as a light fighter with full metalen constructie. This light fighter would use the forward Walter Sagitta I-SR engine and cowling; cockpit; outer wing panels, main undercarriage (rearranged as a conventional 'tail-dragger'); and rudder of the D.23. This design would receive the retroactive designation Ontwerp 157-A. [2] French interest in the Dutch light fighter was lukewarm at best. Perhaps discouraged, Schatzki left Fokker to design the more conventional Koolhoven FK.58 fighter - also aimed at the French market.

Fortunately for Fokker, the Dutch Inspectie der Militaire Luchtvaart (IML) saw potential in the concept as an advanced trainer which could act as an emergency fighter in wartime. However, Fokker design staff quickly realized that they could not meet planned costs with all-metal construction. The opportunity was taken to redesign their light fighter using more conventional - for Fokker - mixed construction.

The result, created under the leadership of Ir. Marius Beeling, was the Ontwerp 157/gc (gemengde constructie or mixed construction) later redesigned Ontwerp 157-B. Beeling's proposal was a near-complete redesign. The fuselage was now a welded steel-tube structure. The D.23-style engine installation remained unaltered. However, the positions of the cockpit and fuselage fuel tank were reversed. Moving the cockpit aft also left space for an armament of twin, cowl-mounted 13,2 mm FN-Browning heavy machine guns.

Four Ontwerp 157-B variants were offered. Ontwerp 157-B/1 and 'B/2 featured aluminum-skinned steel-tube fuselage structures. They differed in Ontwerp 157-B/1 have a new outward-retracting undercarriage while Ontwerp 157-B/2 had a simpler, fixed and spatted undercarriage. Ontwerp 157-B/3 and 'B/4 were, respectively, the retractable- and fixed-undercarriage versions of a variant with a fabric-covered fuselage structure.

(Top) Conceptual Fokker D.25 fighter (in its Ontwerp 157-B/2 form)

In the case of fixed-gear variants, the wing would have an entirely wooden construction (akin to that of the in-service D.XXI). For the retractable-gear variants, wing construction would be mixed - having wooden spars and ribs with plywood covering. Small fuel tanks could be added aft of the outward- retracting undercarriage main legs. Although no immediate order was placed, the Ontwerp 157-B/3 concept was given approval by the IML. For future orders by the Luchtvaart Afdeeling (LVA), the light fighter was assigned the designation D.25.

On yer pins! - Baby-steps with the Fokker D.21/il

To test the concept, the IML recommended testing the new undercarriage on a converted D.XXI fighter. Accordingly, Fokker pulled the D.XXI-1E1 prototype in for second rewinging [4] and ordered scaled-up undercarriage legs from SFMA Messier. It was soon found that the standard D.XXI wing could not easily accommodate the retractable undercarriage. A redesign was undertaken whereby a welded steel-tube truss was substitued for the D.XXI's solid wood front spar. This revised wing was complete by the time the retractable undercarriage was delivered by Mssrs Messier.

As a private venture demonstrator, the former D.XXI-1E1 prototype was assigned the civil registration PH-OKR. It was also redesignated D.21/il - for intrekbaar landingsgestel or retractable landing gear. A relatively straightforward conversion, the D.21/il flew before the more advanced D.23 prototype. In March 1939, the D.21/il was demonstrated at Soesterberg before officials from the Ministrie van Defensie (MvD) and members of the LVA. A demonstrated speed advantage of 35 km/h over in-service LVA D.XXIs was hard to ignore.

(Bottom) Fokker D.21/il demonstrator as reviewed at Soesterberg, 03-05 March 1939

In an 03 April 1939 meeting with the IML, Ir. Beeling had to acknowledge that the unarmed D.21/il carried little in the way of military equipment. However, the Fokker chief designer was comfortable guaranteeing that a derivative fighter would deliver a 25 km/h  speed advantage over the D.XXI. It would also be more manoeuvrable - since the armament would need to be grouped closer to the centreline in the fuselage. By the end of the meeting, Fokker had a development contract for a new D.26 fighter.

(To Be Continued ...)
__________________________________

[1] Originating as Fokker's Ontwerp 155, the twin-boomed  D.23 fighter prototype flew in 1939.

[2] The original Ontwerp 157 was an enlarged D.23 proposal intended for the French.

[3] In this, the IML was advised by the Wetensch.Afd. - the Science Department of the Ministrie van Defensie.

[4] The D.XXI-1E1 prototype had already been trial-fitted with a new revised-profile wing which was not proven successful.

__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 24, 2018, 06:47:37 AM
Fresh Fokker Fighters - the Fokker D.26 1e Serie and D.21/k Conversions

On 05 April 1939, the Dutch Ministrie van Defensie (MvD) offered an expedited development contract to NV Nederlandsche Vliegtuigenfabriek (Fokker) for its D.26 monoplane fighter. The performance advantage of the D.26 was significant enough to warrant an order ... but the Luchtvaart Afdeeling (LVA) was not exactly sure what to do with this new fighter. Some in the LVA saw the D.26 as a direct replacement for their obsolescing, fixed-gear D.XXI fighters. Another school of thought saw a completely new role for the D.26 as a dedicated onderscheppingsjager (interceptor). Others in the LVA proposed a more radical use as a high-speed fotoverkenner (photo-recce aircraft).

It was the Fokker design office which broke the LVA's conceptual log-jam. Anticipating that the D.XXI remaining in service as a fighter might make D.26 introduction a low priority, Fokker hatched a scheme. In this proposal, NV Ned. Vliegtuigenfabriek would buy back the in-service D.XXIs as part of the D.26 sales package. The turned-in D.XXIs would then be refurbished as grondaanvalvliegtuigen (ground attack aircraft) armed with twin 20 mm Madsen cannons for strafing ground targets.

Mooie hobbels (Lovely Bumps) - the Fokker D.21/k Cannon-Fighter

With a D.XXI trade-in/rebuild accepted by the MvD and LVA, design staff under Fokker directeur Ir. Piet Vos devised a refurbishment program. Fokker had already designed underwing 20 mm Madsen pods for Danish D.XXIs. This installation was adopted unchanged. The major changes for the LVA D.XXI rebuild was the application of armour protection - with the armour-glass windscreen meant for the D.26 being adopted along with hardened steel plates being installed in the floor and behind the pilot's seat. With this modifications, the D.XXI was to become the D.21/k (for kanonnen) ground-attack fighter.

The LVA turned in its first D.XXI to Fokker at Schiphol in October 1939. The conversion process was comparatively quick but, by then, the Fokker workforce was stretched to the limit. Meanwhile, a flight from 2e JaVa at Waalhaven was renumbered as 1e GroAanVa - the LVA's first dedicated ground attack squadron (despite still being equipped with standard Fokker D.XXI fighters). As 1e GroAanVa began receiving cannon-armed D.21/k aircraft, the unit was reassigned to Vliegpark Vlissingen on Walcheren.

The Walcheren location was chosen for a number of reasons. LVA planners had concluded that the cannon armament of the D.21/k could be effective against hostile river barges in wartime. Flying from Vlissingen, 1e GroAanVa would be able to help secure nearby Antwerp from enemy river transports. Also added to 1e GroAanVa's primary ground-attack mission were secondary roles of providing top cover for area Koninklijke Marine shipyards as well as acting as an OTU for a planned 2e GroAanVa. 1e GroAanVa was going to be busy.

Not realized by the time of the German attack were the anticipated wing bomb racks. The D.21/k was to be retrofitted with racks to carry four 25 kg (55 lb) light bombs. The firm of Van Heyst designed wing racks for the D.21/k and for the related D.21/b. However, like the racks designed by Van Heyst for the Fokker C.X, prototype bomb racks for the D.21/k proved unreliable. These problem-prone bomb racks were still being de-bugged in May 1940.

(Top) Fokker D.21/k 'Kanonnen-Jager' conversion 230 of 1e GroAanVa at Vlissingen, 11 May 1940. 230 would be lost to 'friendly' ground fire the following day.

First of the Fast Fokker Fighters - the D.26 1e Serie

The Fokker D.26 1e Serie was something of a half-way house - differing little from the D.21/il. [2] Other than having a retractable undercarriage and revised tailplane, the D.26 1e Serie was essentially a D.XXI. And, in part, that explains how Fokker was able to produce the D.26 1e Serie fighters so quickly. In reality, much of their airframes had been created using D.XXI spares and jigs. The D.26 1e Serie fighters were armed with four 7,9 mm FN-Browning machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller disc. The 1e Serie featured an armour-glass windscreen but lacked the D.26's planned reflector gun sight and sliding canopy.

The production Fokker D.26 1e Serie fighters were intended for 1e JaVa based at Schiphol and Eelde. But 1e JaVa would receive its 1e Serie through a circuitous route. with the Netherlands' General Mobilization of August 1939, came a change of plans. A new fighter squadron was established specifically to introduce the D.26 - 5e JaVa stationed on a 'relief' field at at De Zilk in Zuid-Holland. 5e JaVa was also to act as the operational training unit for D.26 conversion. This decision also took pressure off existing fighter squadrons to trade-in their D.XXIs.

(Bottom) Fokker D.26 1e Serie fighter, 248, as delivered to 'Hulpvliegvelden' (Auxiliary Airfield) De Zilk in mid-September 1939.

Initially, 5e JaVa was equipped with a half dozen D.XXIs and the six D.26 1e Serie aircraft (243-248). By December of 1939, the D.XXIs were traded in for six new D.26 2e Serie fighters. When a second batch of six D.26 2e Serie aircraft arrived at De Zilk in late February 1940, 5e JaVa re-equipped completely with D.26 2e Serie fighters. (5e JaVa was overstrength to allow for the demands and potential cost of being an OTU.) The squadron's surplus D.26 1e Serie aircraft were then passed on to 1e JaVa.

The first 1e JaVa sub-unit to convert to new D.26s was the flight at Schiphol. Originally this Schiphol detachment was only a 3-aircraft flight of D.XXIs. However, the Schiphol unit was bumped up to 6-aircraft by raiding 1e JaVa's Eelde flight for trained pilots. [3] The Schiphol fighters were detailed to escort the dozen Fokker T.V medium bombers of BomVa (2-I-1 LvR) also based at Schiphol. Just before the German attack on 10 May 1940, 2e JaVA took over at Schiphol and 1e JaVA relocated to De Kooy.

_______________________________

[1] A related scheme anticipated the fitting of bomb racks to four-gunned D.21/b jachtbommenwerperen (fighter-bombers). These were to be D.XXIs fitted with the same armour protection as the D.21/k. Along with wing racks, a belly rack would allow a further 50 kg (110 lb) bomb to be carried under the fuselage.

[2] In its earliest phase of development, the D.26 was know internally at Fokker as Ontwerp 165.

[3] On 10 May 1940, the 'rump' 3-aircraft 1e JaVa flight at Eelde near Groningen had only just converted to D.26 1e Serie fighters.

[4] The D.21/il was armed and delivered to the LVA as part of the D.26 1e Serie contract. However, this hybrid retained its D.XXI-style tailplane and, so, did not represent a true D.26 1e Serie aircraft.

_______________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 24, 2018, 08:25:23 AM
Wow those Fokkers are great even if I have to dock you points for de-spaterizing them.

With retractable gear they make me think of Curtiss Hawk 75s/P-36s.

You have enviable talent which is showcased nicely by these outstanding profiles!

Brian da Basher

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Tophe on March 24, 2018, 01:58:17 PM
Be careful not to be burnt alive!: removing spats is heretic as destroying a twin-boom layout! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2018, 03:55:10 AM
Okay, a compromise ... partial spats  >:D

Interim Fokker Fighters - the Fokker D.26 4e Serie and SD.1 Combat Trainers

Republican Spain had purchased a production license to produce the Fokker D.XXI. This D.XXI variant differed from most in its choice of engine. In place of the usual Bristol Mercury, Spanish D.XXIs were to be powered by the Wright Cyclone - either US-built 775 hp powerplants or Soviet 710 hp M-25 radials. Production was begun at La Hispano Aviaciòn’s San Vincente del Raspeig facility near Alicante. Only one Hispano-built D.XXI was ever flown (its further fate going unrecorded). The remainder of this initial batch were still on the production line when the factory was overrun by advancing Nationalist forces in 1938.

Through circuitous contacts, NV Ned. Vliegtuigenfabriek cautiously approached the Spanish Nationalists about purchasing the Hispano parts. In early 1939, an offer was made to purchase all Spanish-built D.XXI components through a Mexican intermediary. A deal was struck and remaining Hispano components were crated and sent to the port of Alicante for shipment. To skirt Dutch embargo regulations, the crated D.XXI components were loaded aboard a Mexican-flagged cargo ship bound for Cuba. [1] In Havana, the parts were transferred to a Dutch-registered cargo vessel sailing home from the Dutch West Indies.

'Improvements?' - Renovating la Caza de Fokker

Hispano had planned to built 24 D.XXIs for Spain's Republican government. Only one Spanish aircraft was completed and flown (but its subsequent fate goes unrecorded). Of the remaining components, several airframes were incomplete and no Cyclone (or Soviet M-25) engines were included in the sale. Fokker's original intentions for the Spanish components were a little fuzzy. The initial concept was to complete the airframes as Wright-powered D.XXIs for quick export (by the beginning of 1939, many European air forces were desperate to re-equip with modern fighters). But plans shift ...

Fokker was over-loaded with work in 1939 and the MvD was becoming impatient with both the delivery rate of D.26 fighters and the repair schedule for several damaged LVA D.XXIs. In meetings between MvD officials and Fokker staff, it was agreed that the Spanish components would be redirected to the LVA. The two most complete Spanish-built airframes were fitted with Mercury engines as interim LVA D.XXI replacement aircraft. Other components were used to more quickly repair three damaged LVA D.XXIs.

'Laagdekker jachtvliegtuig met intrekbaar landingsgestel' - the Fourth Fokker

Six semi-finished Spanish airframes would be completed with new wings as D.26 4e Serie fighters. [2] These aircraft were more closely related to the 1e Serie than to the later-model D.26s. Minor differences in the 4e Serie resulted mainly from the use of Hispano's parts. The engine installation was identical to the 1e Serie D.26 but to speed development, the 4e Serie aircraft only mounted two machine guns. [3]

There were individual differences within the D.26 4e Serie batch as well. The first two 4e Serie fighters received reconditioned Mercury VII engines with added interrupter gears (the rest got Mercury VIIIs). D.26 4e Serie nr. 256-259 were armed with twin 7,9 mm FN-Browning guns. The final pair - nr. 260-261 - got two 13,2 mm FN-Brownings (weapons intended to arm 3e Serie fighters) as well as reflector gun sights. All of the 4e Serie D.26s were equipped for radio transmitters but none actually received an R/T set before 10 May 1940.

All six D.26 4e Serie fighters were delivered to the 3e Jachtvliegtuig Afdeling replacing D.XXIs. Moving from Soesterberg to Ypenburg, 3e JaVa became a mixed squadron. Despite its 'fighter squadron' designation, part of 3e JaVa was on hastily imported Northrop 8A1 attack aircraft. Introduction of the D.26 brought 3e JaVa back to real fighters but the Fokkers' primary role would be to escort the Northrops. This was made difficult with the lack of radios but that (and the reduced) armament also made the D.26 4e Serie a lighter, more spritely fighter.

(Bottom) D.26 4e Serie of 3e JaVa deployed to the emergency airfield at Ockenburg in early March 1940. Note that the 'Neutrality' markings prescribed in November 1939 have yet to be completely applied. The '4e' cowling marking was to alert armourers to 13,2 mm ammunition requirements.

Les- is More -- the Fokker SD.1 Lesvliegtuig (Lesson Plane)

The decision to complete Spanish-built D.XXI airframes as D.26s left Fokker with surplus wings and fixed undercarriages. Ir. Alfred Gassner had already begun design work on a D.XXI-derived 2-seat trainer. Ontwerp 197 was to be a general trainer powered by a 400 hp Wright R-975 Whirlwind. For this design to work as a fighter-trainer, it was decided that more power was needed. Accordingly the Ontwerp 197 (B) was evolved, powered by a more powerful 600 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp S1H1-G radial.

Originally, the Ontwerp 197 (B) was approved for LVA use as the Fokker S.11. However, before the prototype could fly, a new designation was adopted - SD.1, for the first dedicated fighter-trainer type. Being constructed almost entirely from modified Spanish parts, SD.1 production was quickly accomplished. [4] Six SD.1s were delivered to the LVA at Soesterberg by May 1940. All were then dispatched to De Zilk to serve as lead-in trainers for 5e JaVa.

In a change of plans, it was concluded that the SD.1s should be based at the training base at Vliegpark Vlissingen alongside Fokker S.IV and S.IX biplane trainers. This move was scheduled to begin on 15 May 1940, with the SD.1s resuming operations by the end of the month. Fate, however, would intervene ...

(Top) Fokker SD.1 two-seat trainer, attached to 5e JaVa, De Zilk in Zuid-Holland, 01 May 1940. The overall orange colour scheme of SD.1s was intended as an obvious 'Neutrality' marking.
__________________________________

[1] Through this ruse, NV Ned. Vliegtuigenfabriek was able to legally 'buy' these components from a Cuban handler.

[2] The fourth series was out of numerical sequence because the MvD had already issued orders for improved 2e and 3e Serie D.26 fighters for the LVA. The serials for the D.26 4e Serie aircraft were originally assigned to a third batch of 1e Serie (which was cancelled in favour of the 4e Serie).

[3] It was concluded that changes needed to introduce gun bays into the lower fuselage sides would result in excessive delays in service entry.

[4] The follow-on 2e Serie, the SD.1A, were to be built entirely from Dutch-made parts. Twelve SD.1A were ordered by the MvD in April 1940 but production work had yet to commence when the German invasion began.
__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2018, 04:02:42 AM
Final Fokker Fighters - the Fokker D.26 2e Serie and 3e Serie

The D.26 1e Serie was an interim fighter by design. By maintaining as much commonality as possible with the D.XXI, production of the D.26 1e Serie could be accomplished as quickly as possible. The D.26 4e Serie - with its Spanish-made parts - was, if anything, even more of a 'halfway house' than the 1e Serie fighters. It had always been planned that the ultimate D.26 airframe would introduce components from the non-interim Fokker fighters - the D.22 and D.24. [1]

'All Mod Cons' -  the Fokker D.26 2e Serie Fighter

The D.26 2e Serie could be be easily distinguished from its 1e Serie predecessor by the former's sliding canopy. Subtler changes could be seen in the 2e Serie's taller fin and rudder with cantilever horizontal tail surfaces. All such differences sprang from the planned Fokker D.24. Otherwise, the D.26 2e Serie was little changed. Plans to standardize on a gun armament of 13,2 mm calibre were not realized. Once again, speed of production and service entry trumped planned improvements.

A total of 18 D.26 2e Serie fighters were made in three batches. The first batch - nummers 262 to 267 - were delivered to 5e JaVa at De Zilk in December 1939. The second batch - 268 to 273 - followed in February 1940. Those two deliveries allowed 5e JaVa to standardize on the 2e Serie and release their 1e Serie machines to 1e JaVa. Unofficially dubbed the 'Duinknijnen' ('Poachers'), [2] most 5e JaVa aircraft were marked with the 'Wit konijn' emblem - a leaping white rabbit symbolizing the squadron's potential prey. Some 5e JaVa staff had grumbled about being stuck in out-of-the-way, wind-swept De Zilk. However, this would prove to be a blessing on 10 May 1940.

[Top] D.26 2e Serie fighter of 5e JaVa, De Zilk, January 1940. Inset, 5e JaVa's 'Duinknijnen' emblem.

The final batch of D.26 2e Serie fighters - 274 to 279 - went to 1e JaVa at Eelde in March 1940. There they joined 1e JaVa's D.26 1e Serie fighters (which were ex-5e JaVa). Pilots found little to choose between the two variants. The 2e Serie were slightly faster although this was offset by the weight of the R/T set fitted to most 2e Serie fighters. Compared with the 1e Serie, the D.26 2e Serie had more a little control 'authority' as a result of their enlarged tail surfaces. Pilot opinions were divided over the pros and cons of the sliding canopy ... but not over the benefits of the new reflector sights.

Third Time Lucky? - the Fokker D.26 3e Serie Fighters

With D.26 2e Serie production complete, Fokker shifted its attention to building 3e Serie fighters. Once again, production urgency hampered the introduction of planned improvements. It had been intended that the D.26 3e e Serie would finally introduce four synchronized 13,2 mm machine guns but overworked FN was having trouble delivering this heavier armament. [3] Instead, the 3Serie were armed with the same quartet of 7,9 mm FN-Brownings which armed the 1e and 2e Serie fighters. As a result, the D.26 3e Serie differed only in minor details from the earlier 2e Serie.

A minor difference with the D.26 3e Serie was the ability to mount a bomb rack without modification. This belly rack was to be stressed to carry a single 100 kg (220 lb) bomb. No such racks were delivered by the manufacturer, van Heyst (or van Heijst) so no LVA D.26 3e Serie fighter even carried a bomb in combat during the May 1940 fighting.

About the only external visual clue to the D.26 3e Serie was its forward-canted radio mast (when fitted). Internally there were minor structural changes to speed production and some variations in equipment. Still, it was found in the field, that almost all parts from the D.26 3e Serie could be swapped with those from a 2e Serie fighter. [4]

Deliveries of Fokker D.26 3e Serie fighters began in late March and early April 1940. All 3e Serie fighters went to 2e JaVa at Schiphol, arriving in three sub-batches. The first trio - nummers 380 to 382 - arrived by the end of April. [5] They were joined at Schiphol over the next month by 384-386 and 387-392. A further batch of Serie 3e D.26s - 393 to 398 - were scheduled for delivery to 1e JaVa at De Kooy in June of 1940.

This final variant of realized production D.26s was not the fighter it was meant to be. But the D.26 Serie 3e must not be sold short. Overall, the Serie 3e were the best-equipped D.26s and, doubtless, that contributed to the war record of this Series in May 1940.

(Bottom) D.26 3e Serie of 2e JaVa at De Kooy on 12 May 1940. Note the canted radio mast of the 3e Serie. This fighter shows signs of battle-damage hastily repaired with doped-on fabric patches.
__________________________________

[1] Both D.22 and D.24 designs featured inward-retracting undercarriages and wing-mounted armaments. The D.22 was proposed with a radial (Bristol Hercules, Ontwerp 150) or inline (Rolls-Royce Merlin or Daimler-Benz DB 600, Ontwerp 151) powerplant. The slightly smaller D.24 was to have a Bristol radial (Perseus X or Taurus III, Ontwerp 192). Neither D.22 nor D.24 was ever built.

[2] 'Duinknijnen' was a nickname for Zilkers who poached to fill their pots and pockets.

[3] The few 13,2 mm FN-Brownings delivered prior to 10 May 1940 were all installed in 4e Serie D.26s.

[4] The sliding canopy was an exception. The 2e Serie canopy required a small notch to accommodate the forward-place radio mast. As 3e Serie production progressed, this now-superfluous notch was eliminated to save time and effort. Thus, a 2e Serie canopy could be re-used on a 3e Serie airframe but not vice-versa.
__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 28, 2018, 04:48:04 AM
Interestingly, Finland did develop a version of the Fokker D.XXI with retractable undercarriage.  It retracted inwards rather than outwards though.  Apparently, the performance gain wasn't as good as hoped.

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Clipboard02_zps8ox4o5bj.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/Clipboard01_zpsmt1wysau.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2018, 06:07:07 AM
Thanks for the images Greg. Apparently there were two versions of the RW 'Wasp-Fokker' with retractable undercarriages. The 3.sarja FRw-117 was a January 1941 conversion. The 4.sarja FRw-167 was completed with the retractable gear in March 1942. After an undercarriage collapse in July 1941, FRw-117 was converted back to its original gear. FRw-167 was also converted to a spatted undercarriage in the summer of 1944.

More on Finnish D.26s later ...
____________________________________________________

An Innocent Abroad? - Fokker's D.26 Export Efforts

Fokker's efforts to export the D.26 fighter received considerable attention abroad. Several alternative engines were offered for export versions, including the British Bristol Taurus III or Perseus X and the US Wright Cyclone or Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp radials. The Bristol alternatives were both planned for use in the Fokker D.24. The Cyclone installation was considered proven by the Hispano-built D.XXI (although Fokker had no performance data for that installation). The Twin Wasp needed to be proven, however, and a trial installation was planned.

Estonia, Finland, and Denmark all expressed interest in basic, Mercury-powered D.26s. By May 1940, no orders had been received from the former pair - although Finland would later operate the D.26. The strongest interest came from Denmark.

Denmark's Marinejager - the Unrealized 'Ny fælles jager type'

In 1940, the Danish navy was looking for modern, monoplane fighters to replace obsolete Hawker Nimrod biplanes (L.B.V aka 'Nimrod-jagerfly'). Orlogsvæft, the Naval Aircraft Factory, proposed an original design. However, the stated preference of the Marinens Flyvevæsen (MF) was the Fokker D.XXI for commonality with the Hærens Flyvetropper (HF, Army Aviation Troops). Marinestaben (Maritime Staff), on the other hand prefered the Macchi MC.200 ('C.200 jagerfly') with its more modern retractable undercarriage. A procurement stalemate ensued.

The Danish parliment broke the log-jam with a decision to introduce a 'Ny fælles jager type' (NFJT or 'New Common Fighter Type'). The obvious choice for the Folketing committee was a Danish Fokker D.26 derivative. [1] Under the NFJT scheme, production of the new Fokker fighter would be divided between Army and Navy facilities. To supply the MF's urgent need, production by Orlogsvæft would be given priority. Meanwhile, the Fokker D.XXI (aka IIIJ or Hærens Flyvertroppers 3. jagertype) would remain in service with 2.Eskadrille until replaced by new 'Fokker-jageren'. [2]

For both services, the NFJT would be known as the D.26D (although, within HF planning, terms like IVJ, 'Tredje jagerfly', and 'Hærens Flyvertroppers 4. jagertype' would also be used). The first D.26D to enter service were meant to be with the MF's 2.Luftflotille at Luftmarinestation Avnø (80 km SW of Copenhagen). The D.26D was to be powered by a Mercury VIII and armed with four 8 mm Madsen machine guns. Unfortunately for the Danes, work on the new 'Fokker-jageren' had only just begun in April 1940. The MF's 2.Lf went to war flying obsolete L.B.V 'Nimrod-jagerfly'. The HF's Fokker D.XXIs were largely destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe attacks on Værløse airfield.

(Top) Danish NFJT (Ny fælles jager type) Fokker D.26D as it would have appeared in Hærens Flyvetropper colours

Une chasse de Fokker pour l'Armee de l'Air?

A Cyclone-powered Fokker - the D.26 JI - had been proposed for the Netherlands East Indies. As with the fixed-gear D.XXI before it, the KNIL continued to lean towards more expensive American designs. As war in Europe loomed, the 'Jager Indie' design was revamped for potential export. The Cyclone-powered  D.26F was an unsolicited bid to provide a fighter to the French military.

The D.26F was to be and armed with four synchronized 7,5 mm FN-Browning machine guns. Fokker saw its D.26F as a superior 'colonial fighter' - ie: a replacement for the rival Koolhoven F.K.58. [3] But the D.26F was also pitched to the French as a less expensive substitute for the Curtiss 75A fighter. Unlike the Koolhoven, the D.26F would place no stress on French engine suppliers. Although the French STAé reported favorably on the D.26 generally, the Armée de l'Air showed no immediate interest in Fokker's unexpected proposal.

'Go North, Young Man' - den Norske Fokker

An American-engined D.26 was more tempting for Norway (which was suffering from 'sticker shock' on its panic-buy of Curtiss 75A-8s). A Pratt & Whitney engine would have been desirable for Norway - for its commonality with the Curtiss fighter. Unfortunately, the Twin Wasp-powered D.26 had yet to be offered. The single-row Cyclone was simpler to adapt to the D.26 airframe and Norway badly needed a monoplane replacement for its Gloster Gladiators. Negotiations for the purchase of a dozen Norwegian 'Cyclone-Fokkers' were underway when Germany invaded the country.

(Bottom) Wright Cyclone-powered D.26N

Interest in the 'Cyclone-Fokker' also came from other nations less capable of paying for new fighter aircraft - including Portugal and Greece. [4] More serious attention came from Sweden which was interested in a Twin Wasp-powered variant. Sweden had just been frozen out of its American fighter purchases by a US embargo. Alas, the Netherlands was overrun by the Germans before details could be finalized for a Swedish purchase. A D.26 Twin Wasp conversion was nearing completion at the Fokker factory when it was destroyed by Luftwaffe bombing.

_____________________________________________

[1] At Fokker, the planned 'D.26 (Denemarken)' or 'D.26/Deense marine' was regarded as a D.26 1e Serie derivative.

[2] Plans existed to form a new fighter Eskadrille but the HF had also become interested in the D.XXI/k ground-attack fighter concept. No final decision had been made by 09 April 1940.

[3] The F.K.58 was designed by former-Fokker chief designer, Dr-Ir Erich Schatzki. As a German of Jewish origin, Dr-Ir Schatzki may have regretted his 1938 move to N.V. Koolhoven Vliegtuigen. Frits Koolhoven would later join the Nationaal-Socialistische Beweging, a Dutch Nazi movement.

[4] Greece had also enquired about Gnome-Rhône 14K-powered D.26s (for commonality with its PZL P.24s). Fokker judged that there would be a limited market for such a variant and substitutes were impractical - the Gnome-Rhône 14N having no facility for synchronized gun mechanisms.

_____________________________________________


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2018, 06:08:56 AM
Motorloos of Gewijzigd - Modified Fokker D.26 Fighters

One D.26 3e Serie fighter was taken from the production line for completion as an alternative engine testbed. In the initial plan, D.26 nr. 383 was to trial the installation of a 1,350 hp Bristol Hercules III radial as intended for the Fokker D.22 (Ontwerp 150 variant). This concept proceeded only so far as a mockup installation of a dummy engine.

(Top) Dummy Bristol Hercules engine trial-installed in Fokker D.26 nr. 383

There had been some doubts expressed by the MvD's Chef der Wetensch.Afd. (Head of the Science Department) as to whether the D.26 airframe was too light for the heavy Bristol engine. Before a definitive conclusion could be drawn, another priority rose to the top of the list - preparing current-production Dutch aircraft for alternative powerplants. This was to circumvent concerns of engine supplies from European combatants drying up due to embargoes on neutral countries or other wartime actions.

The proposed alternative engine for the D.26 (and the projected Fokker D.24) was the 1,100 hp US Pratt & Whitney R-1830-G205A Twin Wasp. A variant of Twin Wasp was already in LVA service, powering the Northrop 8A attack aircraft attached to 3e JaVa. In late March 1940, work began at the Fokker factory to convert nr. 383 to 'Wasp-D.26' standard. This Twin Wasp conversion remained incomplete when German bombing of the Fokker factory on 12 May 1940 destroyed the aircraft.

(Bottom) 'Wasp-D.26' - the incompleted conversion of D.26 nr. 383 to R-1830-G205A Twin Wasp

__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2018, 06:11:05 AM
Forlorn Fokker Fighters - the Unbuilt Fokker D.22 and D.24 Projects

Fokker had first put forward a replacement concept for the D.XXI back in 1937. The proposed D.22 looked superficially like a D.XXI with a retractable undercarriage but there was no commonality. As initially planned, the D.22 was marginally larger, with a full metre of additional span. More importantly, the traditional Fokker mixed construction was to be replaced with a stressed-skin metal structure.

The D.22 could be powered by either an air-cooled radial or liquid-cooled V-12. The air-cooled variant - or Ontwerp 150, to give it its project designation - was to be powered by a Bristol Hercules radial. The liquid-cooled type - or Ontwerp 151 - would have either the German Daimler-Benz DB 600H or the British Rolls-Royce Merlin. By 1939, the D.22 concepts had been joined by a rather less ambitious project - the D.24 or Ontwerp 192.

The D.24 was slightly smaller than the D.22 - so, more in line with the original D.XXI in size. Armament was to be six 7,9 mm FN-Browning machine guns mounted in the wings. Power was to be provided by either a twin-row Bristol Taurus III or single-row Bristol Perseus X - both sleeve-valve radials. Thus, Fokker provided a wealth of choices to the Dutch military ... choices which seemed to paralyze both the MvD and KNIL (Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger/Royal Netherlands East Indies Army). [1]

The KNIL's air arm, the Luchtvaartafdeling van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger, preferred American fighters to the Fokker designs. By March 1939, when the LA/KNIL was rebranded as the Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger, US production was already in hot demand by the better-financed French and British forces. The ML/KNIL was forced to rethink its strategy ... but had left things a little late. [2]

The 'domestic' LVA and MLD had slightly clearer ideas on future fighters. It had become clear that the only advantage of the D.22 was its ability (in Ontwerp 150 form) to accommodate the big Hercules radial engine. However, Bristol informed Fokker that local demand for Hercules was growing while demand on the smaller Taurus radial was not. [3] As a rationalization, the Ontwerp 150 was dropped from the program. The Ontwerp 151 was then revised to adapt liquid-cooled engines to a smaller, D.24-style airframe.

The revised Ontwerp 151 program was divided by engine choice - British or German. For what was now the Ontwerp 151D, Daimler-Benz offered either the carburettored DB 600H or fuel-injected DB 601Aa engine. Both 'DB' powerplants could accommodate a single motor-kanonne firing through a hollow shaft. [4]

The rival British engine had no motor-kanonne capability but still had several advantages from the points of view of both the MvD and Fokker. The Ministrie van Defensie had a successful procurement relationship with Rolls-Royce dating back to 1919. Fokker also had a successful association with Rolls-Royce - especially through the Derby's supply of Kestrel engines through the 1930s. The Merlin also had a higher thrust-line than the Daimler - an important factor on the Netherland's grass airfields.

(Bottom) Fokker D.22 (Ontwerp 151M) fighter concept, Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine

The Fokker D.24 (Ontwerp 192) design was adjusted somewhat for maximum commonality with the revised D.22 airframe. Emphasis was now on the Taurus-powered Ontwerp 192T with the Perseus-powered Ontwerp 192P as a backup. US engine alternative variants were, respectively, the Twin Wasp-powered Ontwerp 192W and the Cyclone-powered Ontwerp 192C. All versions of the D.24 fighter were planned with machine gun armaments.

(Top) Fokker D.24 (Ontwerp 193T) fighter concept, Bristol Taurus III engine

The Fokker D.24 was a good design but it is unlikely that it would have provided much advantage over the in-production D.26. A better bet might have been the D.22/Ontwerp 151M. With the added performance of this Merlin-powered D.22, this fighter would have complemented the serving D.26s. As it was, Fokker already had too many projects on its plate and an all-metal fighter was beyond its reach in 1940.

______________________________________

[1] It was hoped that the KNIL would accept the D.24 - in its Cyclone-powered Ontwerp 193C form - for its Indische Jachtvliegtuig contest.

[2] In the end, the 'Indië-Jager' program was dragged out until the only fighter available to the ML/KNIL was the indifferent Curtiss-Wright Demon.

[3]  The only Taurus-powered RAF type in production was the Bristol Beaufort torpedo-bomber.

[4] The default choices were Madsen cannons in 20 or 23 mm calibre. The 20 mm Oerlikon FF had been trialled in the first production Finnish D.XXI and was found wanting in performance.

______________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 02, 2018, 02:11:07 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2018, 03:56:02 AM
Unrealized Projects Related to the Fokker D.26 Fighter

Plans existed for the production of a 5e Serie batch of D.26 fighters for the Marine Luchtvaartdienst (Naval Air Service). The MLD placed an order for twelve Fokker D.26 5e Serie but only minimal work had begun on these aircraft at the time of the German invasion. The MLD anticipated delivery of its first 5e Serie fighters (with full naval equipment) in late July 1940. The MLD's D.26s were to be delivered to De Kooy (near the Den Helder naval base). [1] None were completed but several marinevliegers flew as temporarily-assigned members of the LVA's 1e JaVa - including triple-scorer Andrias van Rest of the MLD's 2-VIG-IV.

The proposed Fokker D.26 6e Serie was held as a possibility by the MvD should delays continue with development of Fokker's more powerful, all-metal D.22 and D.24 fighter series. At the time of the German invasion, no firm decisions had been made as to whether the 6e Serie would be powered by the British Mercury or US Twin Wasp engine. Similarly, no definitive armament choices had been made (although it is generally assumed that four synchronized 13,2 mm FN-Browning guns would be fitted).

From the beginning, it was planned to incorporate elements from Fokker's more advanced D.22 and D.24 projects into the D.26 series fighters. What most limited the potential of the D.26 was the Mercury engine inherited from the D.XXI. The installation of more powerful engines was all but inevitable.

The proposed Fokker D.27 fighter was very closely related to the D.26 airframe. No MvD decision had been taken on ordering the D.27, largely because of engine supply concerns. The D.27 was essentially a Hybrid of D.26 and D.24 airframes - combining the wings and undercarriage of the D.26 with the semi-monocoque rear fuselage of the D.24. Powerplant was to be the Daimler-Benz DB 600H or DB 601Aa inline engine from the D.22 (Ontwerp 151 variant). The difficulty for the MvD was in assessing whether supplies of German engines could be relied upon. [2]

(Top) Fokker D.27DB (Daimler-Benz) fighter concept showing DB 601Aa installation

Another D.26 derivative with engine-supply issues was the SD.2 two-seat trainer. This could be thought of an advanced version of the D.XXI-based SD.1 trainer. D.26 wings were to be used complete with their fully retractable main undercarriage members. In place of the SD.1's bulky radial engine, the SD.2 was originally planned to have the more streamlined Walter Saggita air-cooled inverted V-12 from the Fokker D.23 fighter. [3] Two Saggita-powered variants were planned - the unarmed SD.2A and the SD.2B armaments trainer fitted with twin, cowl-mounted 7,9 mm FN-Brownings.

The Saggita-powered SD.2 concept was put in peril when Germany occupied Bohemia-Moravia - the site of the Walter plant - in March 1939. Fokker immediately began a redesign for alternative engines. The Italian Isotta-Fraschini Gamma was rejected as an immature design while the Menasco E12SG Brigand failed to appear at all. [4] This left the bulkier American Ranger V-12 as the only suitable substitute engine. As before, two variants were planned - the unarmed SD.2C and the SD.2D armaments trainer.

(Bottom) Fokker SD.2C - D.26-based unarmed 2-seat trainer concept

__________________________________

[1] Technically, Maritiem Vliegkamp De Kooy was a naval airfield. It was 1e JaVa which acted as a lodger unit.

[2] The D.22 (Ontwerp 151) had the option of a Daimler-Benz alternative - the British Rolls-Royce Merlin. However, the D.27's synchronized, fuselage-mounted armament would prevent such a substitution.

[3] The D.23 was, itself, being eclipsed by the single-engined D.29 fighter. Influenced by Theo van Slot's De Schelde S.22 design, the D.29's now-engineless nose was redesigned with an emphasis on the ground-attack role.

[4] The Menasco E12SG Brigand was to have been a 17.8 L (1,088 cid) inverted V-12. In effect, the Brigand was to consist of paired D6SG cylinder blocks on a common crankcase. The E12SG-1N proposed for the SD.2 was to produce 750 hp for takeoff (3,000 rpm at sea-level) with a sustained 675 hp at altitude. (The E12 series was to replace the more complicated Unitwin inverted U-12 but foundered after Al Menasco was forced out of the firm in 1938.)
__________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2018, 04:02:06 AM
I started writing a whole storyline on the D.26 but decided that it was far too wordy. So, instead, I'm going to chop the whole affair down into a pair of extended captions for one image...
________________________________

Dan komen de Duitsers aan ... The Fokker D.21/k Cannon-Fighter at War

(Top) A disabled Fokker D.21/k shot up on Schouwen by retreating Dutch troops. Note that, like several 1e GroAanVa D.21/ks, nr. 233 has had its spat fairings removed.

On 10 May 1940, 1e GroAanVa was directed to attack German airborne forces landing on Rotterdam-Waalhaven airfield. At the periphery of the base, the 'Kanonnen-Jagers' were caught in a withering crossfire of both enemy and 'friendly' defensive fire. The 1e GroAanVa flight beat a hasty retreat from the unfriendly skies  of Waalhaven with four of the eight Fokkers damaged by ground fire. [1]

Despite varying degrees of battle-damage, seven of the D.21/ks recovered successfully to [/i]Vliegveld[/i] Vlissingen. However, the fuel tank of nr. 233 had been holed and, low on petrol, 2.lt-vl SJ Postma had to put his Fokker down in a farmer's field near Zierikzee on Schouwen. The pilot was able to arrange a boat ride across to Nord-Beveland and, from their arrange transport back to Walcheren. Postma rejoined 1e GroAanVa but no time or energy could be invested in repairing nr. 233.

Dutch reservists on Schouwen guarded the abandoned D.21/k, expecting a recovery attempt by the LVA. But, when German troops began landing on the island on 13 May, it was clear that quick action was required. Empty fuel tank precluded setting the aircraft ablaze. Instead, the Dutch soldiers shot at what they assumed to be critical points before disposing of their small arms. [2] An advance patrol of German Feldpolizei captured nr. 233 but the D.21/k's flying says were over.

Het einde - The Fokker 1e Serie D.26 Fighter in May 1940

With De Kooy airfield in flames, 1e JaVa survivors, Sergeants Jaap Eden and PJ 'Oppe' Aarts [3] engaged a formation of KG 4 Ju 88A bombers heading for Den Helder. Aarts engaged the lead bomber, seeing pieces fly off as he swept past. A second Junkers was also damaged as he emptied his magazines into the bomber. Sgt-vl Jaap Eden wasn't as lucky. Overly intent on his first target, Eden collided head-on with the Ju 88. Both aircraft fell into the Marsdiep tidal-race between Den Helder and Texel Island.

Rather than risk the recently-strafed De Kooy, res.sgt-vl Aarts headed for the De Vlijt fighter-school strip on Texel. On approach, 'Oppe' discovered that he had no hydraulic pressure. Low on fuel and out of options, he belly landed D.26 nr. 243 as gently as he could on the grass field. The last LVA D.26 1e Serie fighter was now out of action. [4]

(Bottom) Res.sgt-vl Aarts' D.26 1e Serie down on the De Vlijt airstrip on Texel.

The name painted on nr. 243's forward fuselage was 'Helsdeur' (Hell's Door), a pun on the name of Den Helder where 1e JavA was based. The 'Helsdeur' name was applied by the 1e JaVa commander 1.lt-vl HAJ Huddleston Släter, the fighter's previous 'owner'. Huddleston Släter was wounded when cannon strikes from a Bf 109 hit around the cockpit. That accounts for some of the extensive evidence of emergency battle-damage repairs prior to D.26 nr. 243. Having lost his own fighter, [5] Aarts took over nr. 243 when the 1e JaVa commander was hospitalized.

________________________________

[1] Some of that damage was done by Ju 52/3m gunners on the ground but Waalhaven's four Spandau M.25 heavy machine guns were the most effective.

[2] It's not clear when nr. 233 lost its portside cannon fairing - it may have been part of an attempt to sabotage the Madsen gun.

[3] Petrus Johannes Aarts' nickname was a play on his surname (aarts = chief, opperste = supreme).

[4] In the summer of 1940, the Germans recovered D.26 nr. 243 from Texel. It was later broken down for spares before being sold to Finland.

[5] D.26 nr. 247's engine had been hit by defensive fire from a Do 17Z early on 11 May. Aarts diverted to the relief field at Ijselmeer but, with a windscreen covered in oil, he was unable to see obstacles placed on the airfield to prevent enemy glider landings.
________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2018, 04:08:29 AM
'For you, the war is not over!' - the Fokker D.26 Abroad

Several captured D.26s were tested by the Germans as potential fighter-trainers for Luftwaffe use in the Netherlands. [1] Perfunctory trials were undertaken at Schiphol before the RLM declared the D.26s surplus to Luftwaffe requirements. Shortly afterwards, the Germans offered the available D.26s to the Finns.

(Top) An ex-LVA D.26 3e Serie being evaluated by the Luftwaffe for use as a fighter-trainer

In mid-1942, the Finnish Air Attaché in Berlin had approached the Luftwaffe about the possible sale of ex-LVA Fokker D.XXIs and spares to the Ilmavoimat. By this stage, the Germans had access to superior fighter trainers and were content to rid themselves of the remaining D.XXIs. At the same time, the RLM offered the remaining D.26s in German hands as another potential sources of spares for Ilmavoimat D.XXIs.

The Finns happily accepted these German 'war spoils'. The Ilmavoimat placed both ex-Dutch D.XXIs and D.26s into active service. Of the dozen D.XXIs, four were in rough enough condition to be broken up for spares. A well-worn 2e Serie D.26 was also reduced to produce to keep the other six flying. Finnish D.26s were dispersed amongst 2/TLeLv 12 (an Operational Training Unit), 1/LeLv 32, and 3/TLeLv 35.

For the fighter-recce role, several D.26s were fitted with 'Wasp-Fokker'-style extended canopy glazing. One aircraft (FRm-147) was trialled with a Finnish-devised belly bomb rack.

(Bottom) A refurbished 1e serie (1.sarja) D.26 with 3/TLeLv 35. Note that this D.26 has inherited a cowling from a VL-built D.XXI, gained a new Revi gunsite, and has a tail ski fitted. FRm-147 shows evidence of former 'ownership' by LeLv 32.

At one stage, Valtion Lentokonetehdas (VL, the State Aircraft Factory) considered putting a reverse engineered 3.sarja D.26 into production at Tampere. Mercury engines were in short supply, so the Finnish D.26 was to be powered by Soviet 1,100 hp M-63 radials bought - like the ex-LVA D.26s - from German 'war booty' stocks. In the end, it was decided to proceed with the domestic Myrsky fighter design instead. [2] This proved an unfortunate decisions as Myrsky development was troubled and prolonged with the VL fighter never seeing combat action with the Ilmavoimat.

In Finnish service, the  Mercury-engined D.XXI was dubbed 'Ukkomokkeri' (Lighthouse) or 'Isämokkeri' (Father Mokker). For unknown reasons, the D.26 picked up odd nick-names in Finnish service. One was 'Murikka' (Mushroom), another was 'Noita' (Witch). A third, rather more flattering nickname was 'Lumikki' (Snow White) - perhaps derived from the all-over white camouflage in which the Finnish D.26 first served. Two 'Lumikki' fighters - both 3.sarjan airframes - survived the Continuation War to serve postwar with 2/LLv30 as advanced trainers.

______________________________________

[1] It was thought that the D.26's outward-retracting main undercarriage might make it a useful advanced trainer leading to the Bf 109. This idea was dropped when it was realized that the handling characteristics of the German fighter were completely different from those of the D.26.

[2] The VL Myrsky used fewer strategic materials - being of primarily wooden construction - and was powered by the more reliable Swedish-made SFA Twin Wasp SC3-G engine.
______________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 03, 2018, 08:25:37 AM
Very nice, Apophenia! Think you'll do a version of the D.27DB with its shirt on?

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 05, 2018, 04:36:16 AM
Thanks Logan! Here is a revised view of the proposed D.27DB accompanied by an impression of what the D.27 might have looked like had it entered LVA service. I'm assuming that the cowling would have looked similar regardless of whether the DB 600H or DB 601A engine was chosen.

The 'operational' aircraft is shown with DB 601Aa engine, MG FF motor-kannone, and twin cowl-mounted 7,9 mm FN-Brownings. The smaller machine guns would be dictated by continuing supply problems with the 13,2 mm FNs.

On the other hand, the Luftwaffe didn't seem all that impressed with the engine-mounted MG FF. So, if the Nazis had respected Dutch neutrality, other D.27 variants can be imagined. Perhaps, once 13,2 mm supplies improved, three heavy machine guns with one firing through the propeller hub? Or, possibly, just twin 13,2s with a DB 601N for higher intercept performance for deterrence?

Besides engine supply risks, an obvious downside to an operation D.27 with motor-kannone would be the introducion of yet another 20 mm round into LVA service - for Madsen, Solothurn, Scotti, and now Oerlikon guns  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 05, 2018, 04:42:45 AM
Hmmm...those alongside some similarly powered Fokker G.1s would be interesting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 05, 2018, 05:54:58 AM
Hmmm ... back at ya. Might just have a go at that over the weekend  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on May 05, 2018, 05:37:20 PM
Nice Fokker family  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 06, 2018, 02:08:36 AM
Hmmm ... back at ya. Might just have a go at that over the weekend  ;)

My work here is done... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2018, 03:21:20 AM
As promised ... BTW, these Daimler-powered G.1s are based on a sideview by Chris Sandham-Bailey. (I forgot to mention that the D.26s were all based on various  D.XXI sideviews by Thierry Dekker.)

(Top) The last of four pre-production Fokker G.1Ds, production line conversions of semi-completed G.1A fighters for Republican Spain. G.1D models had wing centre-section coolant radiators mounted on either side of the crew nacelle. Armament was 8 x forward-firing 7,9 mm FN-Brownings and one flexible FN gun in the tail cone mount.

(Bottom) One of six production-model Fokker G.4 fighters completed before the German invasion. G.4s had their coolant radiators moved to the outer wing panels. Armament was 4 or 6 x forward-firing 13,2 mm FN-Browning machine guns and one flexible 7,9 mm FN in the tail cone.

_______________________

BTW, doing a Google Image search, I discovered that Wiek Luijken - an AD at Electronic Arts - had already done a very nice Daimler-powered G.1 and another with Merlin engines:

http://www.luijken.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/db601g1.jpg (http://www.luijken.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/db601g1.jpg)
http://www.luijken.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/merling1.jpg (http://www.luijken.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/merling1.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2018, 03:32:10 AM
And a pair of Ilmavoimat Fokker G.1As ... just 'cuz.

As before, this is based upon a Chris Sandham-Bailey sideview (in this case, of a Luftwaffe G.1A). In this scenario, the German's are passing along previously captured aircraft to allies in preparation for Unternehmen Barbarossa.

(Top) Ex-Flugzeugführerschule (B) 8 Fokker G.1A in Ilmavoimat service, August 1942. FG-8 would be lost during a strafing attack on the Murmansk railway in February 1943.

(Bottom) Ilmavoimat Fokker G.1A after mid-1943 refurbishment and modification by the VL state aircraft factory. Mods include twin 20 mm guns [1] added to the forward-firing armament, wing bomb-racks, dust filters on the carb intakes, etc.
_____________________________________

[1] Cannons were either 20 ItK/39 Madsen or aircraft-adapted 20 ItK/40 VKT 'Vekotin' guns.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 11, 2018, 12:27:41 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2018, 03:20:43 AM
Inspired by Carlos' single-seat Tornado ...

Panavia 100 Panther

The Panavia 100 single-seat fighter was a real project. In the early days of the Multi-Role Combat Aircraft, the Panavia 100 was developed alongside its 2-seat Panavia 200 counterpart. So, what if the development of the Panavia 100 had continued?

Panavia's object was maximum commonality between its single- and 2-seat aircraft. Invariably, though, external differences beyond the canopies would begin to appear by the time the go-ahead for the single-seat version was issued by German and Italy in 1974. [1] The production Panavia 100 Panther had a shorter forward fuselage than the 2-seat Panavia 200 Tornado. The radomes were also of a subtlely different shape. [2] Harder to notice was that the Panther's vertical tail had a slightly narrower chord than that of the bigger Tornado.

In both German Luftwaffe and Italian AMI service, the Panavia 100s replaced F-104 Starfighters in the fighter-bomber role. In effect, the Panther followed the pattern of the Soviet Flogger series - designed as a variable-geometry frontal fighter (the MiG-23) but finding its forté as a ground-attack aircraft (the MiG-27).

Shown here is a Luftwaffe Panavia Panther in a well-worn Norm 90J camouflage scheme. On the vertical tail, MARINE titles have been crudely overpainted and JaBoG 33 markings applied. [3] The rather scruffy appearance of this heavily-used German Panther contrasts with the generally neat condition of Italian Panteras.
___________________________

[1] Canada withdrew very early in MRCA development while the United Kingdom participated only in the 2-seat Tornado section of this programme.

[2] The two aircraft used completely different radar systems - Tornados having Texas Instruments multi-mode terrain-following sets, Panthers having the Ferranti AI.23P Airpass III monopulse radar.

[3] All Marinefliegergeschwader 1 Panthers were transferred to the Luftwaffe in exchange for used Tornado IDS.
___________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 12, 2018, 03:33:47 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 15, 2018, 04:29:57 AM
A quickie retouch for Tophe (in absentia) ... a twin-boomed Stearman XA-21.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 15, 2018, 04:32:47 AM
... and another quickie retouch. This is the first of two prototype Handley Page H.P.101 military transports. Like BOAC's H.P.97 'Pacific' airliner upon which it was based, the H.P.101 used the powerplant, wings, and tail unit from the H.P.80 Victor bomber. The H.P.101 differed from the H.P.97 in having clamshell rear loading door for cargo instead of a lower passenger deck.

The first prototype H.P.101 had square-cut windows similar to those of de Havilland Comet 1. Fortunately, Handley Page was able to learn from DH's misfortune. The first prototype was soon grounded and replaced on trials by the revised second prototype. The first prototype was then used for stress testing after donating many of its major components to the first production example.

The production-model Handley Page Harrow C.Mk.1A entered RAF service in 1958. These aircraft differed from the prototypes mainly in having enlarged tailplane 'bullets' and Comet 4-style mid-span fuel tanks. The Harrow C.1As were used primarily for trooping - especially on Mid-East and UN deployments. The RAF had other trooping transports but the Harrow C.1A had the advantage of being able to carry 85 fully-equipped troops ... with all their equipment, weapons, and supplies stowed on the lower level.

A Harrow C.2 was proposed which was to employ the longer-span wings of the Victor B.2 along with that bomber's Rolls-Royce RCo.11 Conway turbofan engines. Unfortunately, no RAF order for the C.2 was forthcoming [1] and the Sapphire-powered Harrow C.1A had to soldier on. In 1972 it was decided to re-equip the Harrow fleet as long-range air-to-air refuelling tankers. To that end, the rear loading doors were sealed, a refuelling operator's station installed, and three hose-and-drum units mounted. One HDU was mounted in the former starboard loading door, the others were pylon-mounted on the wings (just outboard of the external wing tanks).

The hard-worked Harrow C.1A(K) was scheduled to leave service in 1985. However, RAF budget cuts threatened to the fleet with early retirement in 1980. Weighing whether to retain the C.1A(K)s or Victor B(K).1A tanker conversions delayed that decision. This reprieve allowed the Harrow C.1A(K) to play a major role in the Falklands conflict - both as IFR aircraft and for trooping. The Harrows were retired the following year, their place taken by converted Lockheed Tristars.

______________________________

[1] Sir Frederick was resolute that Handley Page remain an independent firm. This flew in the face of  Whitehall's then-current Merge-or-Die agenda.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 29, 2018, 06:22:18 AM
A simple one. What if Kawasaki couldn't negotiate a license-production deal with Daimler Benz?

I have a vague memory that the Hispano-Suiza HS 12Y was in the running for JAAF service at one point. So, here is a Kawasaki Ki-61-Ia Hien interceptor powered by a 1,100 hp Kawasaki Ha.39 V-12 (assuming a domestic Hispano development programme akin to that of the Klimov M-105P).

The Ki-61-Ia dispensed with the troublesome, jam-prone Japanese version of the HS.404 moteur-canone. In place of the Ki-61-I's 20mm and synchronized rifle-calibre guns, the Ki-61-Ia mounted three 12.7 mm heavy machine guns (what appears to be a 20 mm muzzle is actually a Huck's starter dog). The Ki-61-II heavy interceptor would add a further pair of 12.7 mm wing guns.

BTW, these sideviews are based on a Jerry Boucher profile of an Akeno fighter school machine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Hardrada55 on May 30, 2018, 01:27:57 AM
It seems like before WW2 the Japanese experimented with many different liquid cooled in-lines. 

The Mitsubishi Ha-2 of the mid-1930s was a Hispano Suiza 12Y clone.  Japan built 367 of them.  The Ha-2-II developed 940hp@2300rpm; 2196ci; 555kg

The Mitsubishi Ha 21 was supposed to be a development of the Hisso but was of smaller displacement at 1470ci; 900hp@3050rpm; 485 kg;  The Mitsubishi Ha 121 was a further development giving 1070hp. 

Nakajima built an engine in 1939-40 called NLF.  An inverted V-12; 950hp@2700rpm; 1689.7ci; 495kg

Before Kawasaki committed to the Daimler Benz inspired Ha 40, they built the Ha 9, which was the engine used in the Kawasaki Ki10 "Perry" fighter. 

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 30, 2018, 01:41:55 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on June 01, 2018, 06:27:31 AM
Cool, but like all 12Y powered aircraft, underpowered and would stay that way.  ;D
License for the 12Z perhaps?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 02, 2018, 07:24:31 AM
Hardrada55 - Thanks for the details ... I thought that there was a Japanese HS 12Y but good to know for sure. The The Mitsubishi Ha 121 sounds close to what I had in mind.

Jon: Too true. I was imagining a Klimov-style development history for this engine.


Update I just realized that I never mounted the radial-engined versions of the Ki-61  :-[  So, here they are ...

A variation on the Hien theme. Kawasaki was slow getting the Ha.40 engine into production (the Ki-60 was powered by an imported DB 601A). So, what if no further DB 601s were available but the IJA wanted the airframe proven before ordering?

Step one, trial the airframe with a Nakajima Ha-25 (a Sakai borrowed from an A6M2-N Rufe) and follow up with a Mitsubishi Ha-102 (in a Kawasaki Ki-45 cowling).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2018, 04:57:30 AM
Springing off from Logan's concept for a common camouflage scheme for a France-sized fictitious country ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7832.msg141873#msg141873 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7832.msg141873#msg141873)

Here are two Tanganyikan fighters circa 1993. Although 'standardized', there is no fixed camouflage pattern for TDF/AW [1] aircraft. The specified colours are Udongo (Earth brown), Nyasi (Grassland tan), and Msitu (Forest green). However, actual colours vary widely since they come primarily from German-supplied former NVA/LSK stocks. The greatest variation is to be seen in Nyasi since this is a locally-mixed colour.

All Tanganyikan combat aircraft are assigned bird names in Swahili.

(Top) MiG-21UM Kipanga of No.6 Sqn based at Dar. These two-seat fighter-trainers are regarded as being fully operational interceptors.

(Bottom) WSK-Mielec Lim-5(Tn) Nyuki-kula fighter-bomber of No.5 deployed to Ikoma in the northwest. [2] Note that this Lim has had its original white aircraft number overpainted in blacked).

With the resumption of German military aid, ex-NVA/LSK Lim-5s were provided as interim combat aircraft to replace now-unsupported Chinese Shenyang J-5s. The Lim-5(Tn) designation reveals equipment added specifically to suit Tanganyikan operational conditions.

Initially, the Lim-5s served as fighter-interceptors with No.6 Sqn and fighter/fighter-bombers with No.5 Sqn. However, within three years, No.6's Lim-5s were already being replaced by ex-NVA/LSK MiG-21s. [3] The Lim-5s served on with No.5 Sqn (bolstered by Aero L-39 Msitu/Bushshrike light strike aircraft). In 1998, the last operational Lim-5s gave way to the first MiG-23BNs.
____________________________________________

[1] Both English and Swahili names for the Air Wing are considered correct. The former is the Tanganyika Defence Force/Air Wing (TDF/AW). The latter is the Nguvu ya Ulinzi ya Tanganyika/Mrengo wa Air - hence the 'NUT/WA' titles below individual aircraft numbers on tail fins.

[2] Ikoma is listed as an 'Air Base' but 'Forward Operating Base' would be more accurate.

[3] The TDF/AW would eventually receive three each of MiG-21UM and MiG-21US Mongol B two-seaters along with a total of 16 MiG-21 fighters (in a mix of 'PFM and 'SPS models).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:08:10 AM
[remounted]

In Tanganyika, ex-NVA/LSK Mil Mi-2 helicopters served in several forms in both the Land Force and Coastal Force. As a result, three different Swahili names were applied to the type. [1] In 'Jeshi' (TDF/LF) service, the Mi-2T transport helicopters were named Kiboko (Hippopotamus) while armed assault helicopters were the Ngiri (Wart Hog). When kitted out a gunship, the Ngiri received the sub-type designation Mi-2TG. Fitted with rocket pods, the Ngiri became an Mi-2TR (Roketi).

A Striped Suit for the Hippo

An Mi-2T Kiboko in highly distinctive Polisi markings originally applied for the 1998 Dar-es-Salaam Aerospaci la Afrika Mashariki airshow. The 'milia-milia' ('stripey') scheme [2] caught the public's imagination and helped draw attention to the Kibaha Polisi's anti-poaching activities - especially when deployed to remote rural areas.

'Milia-milia' wears POLISI titles and is operated by police personnel. However, the anti-poaching squads report to the MWT (Mamlaka ya Wanyamapori Tanganyika or Tanganyika Wildlife Authority) and the Mi-2T is actually on loan from the TDF-LF. All TDF-LF markings have been overpainted for this special scheme - including the serials, roundels, and 'HATARI' (DANGER) tail markings.

Most police aircraft are flown by Sergeant-Pilots (Polisi Majaribio-Sergent). The only other flight crew member is the flight engineer (Helikopta-Mkuu or 'Chiefie') who also mans the flexible gun. [3] The anti-poaching dismount team (Kukamata) are normally led by a Luteni pili (2nd Lieutenant). Although police personnel, the Kukamata are armed like typical 'Jeshi' squadies.

Gunship Garb - Bigger Tusks for the Wart Hog

The Mi-2TG Ngiri gunship came in a range of forms. [4] This 'Hog' is a later-model Mi-2 attrition replacement shown mounting the Polish-supplied gun pod. Although gun pods are intended as mission kits, note that this aircraft has had its starboard aft window opening permanently enlarged for added firepower. [5]

This aircraft sports full-colour roundels as briefly adopted to improve TDF/LF aircraft recognition during the renewed border tensions with Uganda in 2006. The standard door gun kit mounts an MG3 GPMG (below which is a fabric draught-excluder). Note that the cockpit doors of this 101 Kivita (No. 101 Squadron) Ngiri have been removed (perhaps in preference to following orders to overpaint unit markings) but no armour plates have been added. [6]

____________________________________________________

[1] Coastal Force Mil Mi-2s were named Avoti (Avocet).

[2] In Swahili, a zebra is called a Punda Milia (or 'striped ass').

[3] The heavy machine gun shown is a Type 53 (a Chinese copy of the Soviet SG-43 Goryunov). The pintle-mount is in the starboard window to leave the door free for Kukamata dismounts.

[4] Early kits mounted podded GSh-23L twin-barrelled 23 mm cannons. To distinguish them from the 30 mm variants, the '23s' are usually referred to as 'Kiboko Gunships' rather than Ngiri.

[5]  The starboard window weapon was usually an MPiKM (AK) automatic rifle or, on occassion, an L4A6 Bren light machine gun.

[6] Also unusually, this 'Wart Hog' carries no long-range fuel tanks on its pylons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:11:40 AM
[Remounted]

Tanganyika Defence Force/Coastal Force Aircraft

This standard scheme for TDF/CF aircraft is all-over medium grey with lo-viz roundels in six positions and a small Tanganyika flag on the sides of the fin. Below the flag is 'NUT/NP', the abbreviation for Nguvu ya Ulinzi ya Tanganyika/Nguvu ya Pwani (literally, TDF/Power of the Coast). TDF/CF codes are distinct - being 'NP' for Coastal Force followed by an individual aircraft number.

From 1982, the TDF/CF's coastal surveillance aircraft was the Cessna Albatrosi (Albatross) obtained in three batches. The Albatrosi was a stock Cessna 310Q light twin with the only real concession to its military role being rearward-facing observer's seats. Several concepts have been put forward to fit the Albatrosi with some form of surveillance radar - either nose- or belly-mounted - but none of these have come to fruition. The Albatrosi continue their coastal patrol role equipped only with high-powered binoculars and air-drop survival packs.

There is virtually no variety within 'Coastal' aircraft schemes. This aircraft does, however, carry the TDF/CF crest on its nose indicating that this is the 'personal mount' of the unit CO, Kamanda Abeid Makamba. TDF/CF codes are 'NP' for Coastal Force followed by an individual aircraft number, '62'. In this case, the individual number stands for the second aircraft of the sixth NUT/NP type. [1] 'NP-62' is also the only Albatrosi with polishing spinners ('NP-61' and 'NP-63' both having shorter, early-model 310Q spinners painted grey.) [2]

The Westland Wasp is a former NUT/NP aircraft transferred to the Police Field Force's (PFF) Police Marine Unit. [3] As an interim finish, this helicopter retains its 'Coastal' scheme of all-over grey with a few PMU adornments - including dayglow SAR panels and PMU badges on the front doors. When ready for Depot Level Maintenance, this Wasp is scheduled to be repainted in the standard PFF scheme of white uppers with dark blue lower surfaces. [4]

____________________________________________________


[1] For the record, NUT/NP aircraft types were/are: 1 - Miles Gemini (ret'd); 2 - Beagle Airdale (ret'd); 3 - Bell 47G (ret'd); 4 - Westland Wasp (tranferred to Police); 5 - Cessna 404 Titan (transferred to TnGAS); 6 - Cessna 310Q; 7 - Aerospatiale As.312 Bata (Duck, Wasp replacement); and 8 - Mil Mi-14 Mwali (Pelican).

[2] 'NP-60' has matt black spinners but this aircraft is held in reserve and is usually inactive.

[3] The Police Marine Unit received all former NUT/NP Wasp helicopters while the Police Air Wing received ex-NUT/JA Westland Suni or 'Scout'. (The armed Nungu (Porcupine) Scout variants went to the PFF's Emergency Response Team.)

[4] This colourful and glossy PFF scheme also obviated the need for high-visibility SAR panels.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:26:08 AM
Sidelined Supermarines - Fighter Derivatives of the Supermarine S.5 Race

The now-all-but-forgotten Supermarine Sea Snake reconnaissance-fighter originated as a private venture submission for a float fighter based upon the S.5 Schneider Trophy racing monoplane. The incompleted fourth Type 220 S.5 airframe was revised to serve as the prototype Type 220M Sea Snake.

Prototype N270 revealed some dramatic differences from the S.5 racer. The wire-braced wooden wings of the racer were replaced by metal structure, fully-cantilevered wings of reversed-gull layout. The object here was to reduce the height of the float struts. The latter were paired struts covered with a streamlined fairings which also enclosed the engine coolant radiators. Extra float-mount rigidity came from forward wire-bracing and rear 'V' struts (the portside strut also have steps for cockpit access).

The Type 220M also had its cockpit raised to provide a more reasonable view for the pilot. The powerplant was similar to the S.5 racer's 'broad arrow' W-12 engine - but, in this case, a service-rated 570 hp Napier Lion XIIA. Armament consisted of twin 0.303" Vickers guns mounted in the 'bend' of the gull wings.

The prototype Type 220M was followed by a series of five Sea Snakes intended for service trials. The RAF was largely satisfied by the performance of Supermarine's Type 220M but could find no dedicated role for the Sea Snake which, it was found, could only operate from sheltered water. A proposed land fighter derivative - the Type 220L Snake - seemed more promising but, the Air Ministry concluded, the Napier Lion W-12 had run its course as an engine for fighter aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:30:38 AM
(See Reply #1784 Sidelined Supermarines on the previous page for the beginning of this story ...)

Supermarine's Type 222 Serpent interceptor monoplane of 1932 was derived from the earlier Type 220M Sea Snake float-fighter. As the Air Ministry and RAF had made clear that they were no longer interested in the Napier Lion W-12, a new engine type was required. Having worked closely with Rolls-Royce on the 'R' series race engines for the S.6 and S.6B, Derby's smaller Kestrel V-12 was an obvious choice.

The Type 222 Serpent design differed from the unbuilt Type 220L only in detail. The wheel trousers were refined, eliminating the faired-in coolant radiators. Instead, a single, semi-retractable radiator was positioned beneath the fuselage in the wing centre-section. Serpent armament was increased to four 0.303" Vickers guns - two in the upper cowling synchronized to fire through the propeller disc with an option of two more in the wings.

The RAF initially considered the Type 222 as a back-up for Air Ministry Specification F.7/30. The Serpent matched the F.7/30 contest's demand for a four gun armament but failed to meet that Specification's minimum landing speed.  [1] Service testing of the Serpent began but, when Supermarine entered its Goshawk-powered Type 224 for F.7/30, the RAF lost all interest in the Type 222.

(Top) Supermarine Type 222 Serpent prototype at Martlesham Heath, July 1932

Responding to private enquiries from Argentina, the Type 222 was 'demilitarised' as a racer. With all military equipment removed, the Serpent prototype was shipped to Buenos Aires in early 1934. The erstwhile 'Argentine Racer' was part of a rather obvious ruse. To the north of Argentina, the Gran Chaco War had been raging between Bolivia and Paraguay. Arms shipments to either country fell under an embargo of the League of Nations. As soon as the Type 222R racer was unloaded, it was painted in camouflage colours, given Paraguayan markings, and flown north to Ascuncion.

(Bottom) Supermarine Type 222R Serpenta in Fuerzas Aéreas Nacional del Paraguay colours. Note that the lowest portion of the undercarriage trousers has been removed to avoid mud accumulation.

Re-arming the Type 222R proved more challenging than expected. The synchronising gear had been removed and no armed, Kestrel-powered fighters were available to provide a model. In the end, it proved simpler to fit an unsynchronised armament in the wings. Twin Italian 12.7 mm Breda guns taken from a damaged Caproni AP.1 attack aircraft were installed in the wing bays. However, the Type 222R - or Serpiente - was employed almost exclusively as a fast reconnaissance aircraft. The Serpenta fired its guns only once in air combat. In November 1934, the Type 222R engaged Bolivian Cuerpo de Aviación fighters During the Battle of El Carmen. One Bolivian Curtiss-Wright Osprey was claimed damaged [2] before the Serpiente disengaged to report on the retreat of the Cuerpo de Caballería boliviano.

The Supermarine Type 222R Serpiente survived the Gran Chaco War but ground-looped at Asunción shortly after the end of the conflict. The damaged Type 222R was returned to its Argentine owners in March of 1935 and, after assessment, the Serpiente was finally scrapped in early 1936.

________________________________

[1] This was compounded by Type 222  Serpent's tendency to 'float' during landing.

[2] This 'damaged' claim by pilot Tte.1º PAM Pabón Argaña was never confirmed. Earlier, while flying the Serpiente, Capitán PAM Carmelo Peralta had strafed CA on the ground. This occurred during the 8 July 1934 attack on the Bolivian fortified base of Ballivián but no claims were made.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:36:39 AM
Fairey Super Battle

By 1939, Battle light bomber production was in full swing at Fairey's facility at Heaton Chapel, Stockport and by Austin Motors' shadow factory at Longbridge, Birmingham. However, pre-war air exercises had already revealed ominous signs that the underpowered Battle might not be operationally viable. Work was already underway at Fairey to develop what became the Super Battle.

The Super Battle began as a 'least-mod' development of the in-production Fairey Battle light day bomber. Increased power was paramount and Fairey's Hamble design office considered three new engine possibilities: Fairey's own P.24 'twin 12-cylinder', the Bristol Hercules II radial, and, as a back-up, the Napier Sabre I. Fairey pushed hard for the P.24 but the Air Ministry stipulated Napier's H-24 powerplant.

The heavier engine was accommodated by shifting it aft (compared with the Battle's Merlin installation). This was managed by eliminating the Battle's separate forward cockpit bay and relocating the pilot into the semi-monocoque fuselage proper. This reduced the Super Battle's complement to a crew of two - with pilot doubling as bomb-aimer, [1] while the air gunner had to juggle navigation and wireless operation tasks.

A prototype Super Battle (converted Battle L1924) was completed in August 1939 but this aircraft would never fly. After its third Sabre engine failed in ground tests, the Air Ministry ordered the Super Battle programme abandoned.

From 'Armoured Battle' to Austin Aurochs

The engineless L1924 was sent to Austin Motors to act as an assembly instructional airframe. There, it inspired Austin's 'Armoured Battle' - a mid-1940 anti-invasion project. At the outset, Austin was exploring the possiblity of applying external armour protection to the basic Battle airframe. Although promising, it was obvious to Air Ministry officials that a heavily armoured Battle would be an even poor performing than the standard day bomber. In a radical move, Austin's small design office proposed a drastic reduction in span by eliminating the Battle's wing centre section.

Although the design was promising, the Ministry for Aircraft Production believed that Austin was out of its depth and immediately transferred design work on the 'Armoured Battle' from Austin to Fairey. Hamble undertook a review of Austin Motors's work and simplified the design. The obvious change was the moving of the coolant radiators to the side of the fuselage. This way, the same armour covering protected both radiators, crew, and a new central fuselage fuel tank at the same time. Another change came from Dowty which had been asked to revise the Battle main undercarriage design. [2] Dowty came back with a clearer and entirely new main gear design where the main wheels rotated 90 degrees Curtiss-style to lie flat in the wing.

Other than its undercarriage bays, the 'new' wing was structurally unchanged from Battle outer panels. Fairey proposed a forward-firing armament of 8 or 12 .303" Browning machine guns. Other offensive armament consisted of 250-lb GP bombs carried in individual bomb-bays. Defensive armament was made up of twin Vickers GO guns in an armour-glass protected rear cockpit. Due to the urgency of the times, there was no prototype - the first aircraft was also the first production Austin Aurochs Mk.I to roll out of Austin Motors' new Eldon, Birmingham plant.

(To be continued)
_________________________

[1] A periscopic bomb-sight was to be mounted on the portside of the pilot's cockpit for this purpose.

[2] In the original scheme, the Battle main gear struts were to compress upon retraction to shorten the undercarriage legs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 02:41:46 AM
Austin Aurochs - the Armoured Avenger

By the time that the Austin Aurochs Mk.I achieved squadron service in October 1940, all thought of anti-invasion measures were beginning to fade. The armoured Aurochs were used to good effect shooting up German invasion barges tied up in French Channel ports. The squadrons were pulled back into reserve and after-action reports used to improve the breed.

Crews appreciated the armour protection which encouraged agressive use of the Aurochs. Experience was showing the value of forward-firing armament over inaccurately-dropped GP bombs. The need for longer-ranging gun armament had also become obvious. There was also room for improvement in defensive armament. The twin Gas-Operated guns had a very limited range of traverse and visibility was poor through the armour glass of the rear canopy.

Both armament problems had been anticipated and the final few Aurochs Mk.I were modified on the production line as cannon-armed Mk.IIs. Whereas the thick Battle wing had been seen as an aerodynamic liability, it became a positive boon when installing cannon armament. Defensive armament was improved through the substitution of Bristol B.I gun turrets (also retrofitted to create Aurochs Mk.IAs). This installation solved the traverse issue and visibility problem but at the cost of lighter armament and reduced armour protection for the gunner.

The Aurochs Mk.IIs mounted the handful of available 37 mm COWS guns adjusted for pneumatic cocking and firing. Of course, the COWS gun was out of production and alternatives needed to be found. [1] The answer came when British Hispano deliveries increased. After a trial installation in a Battle, four 20 mm guns became standard on the Aurochs Mk.III production model. [2] The Mark III also received the twin-Browning Bristol B.II turret. All but the first few Aurochs Mk.III also had twin Volkes dust filters for the side-draught carburettors - dictated by the decision to deploy the Aurochs as armoured tank-killers in the Western Desert ...

_________________________

[1] Under early consideration were a sextet of 20 mm Oerlikons or a pair of American Oldsmobile 37 mm guns. Neither weapon type had the necessary muzzle velocity for the role envisioned.

[2] Besides the quartet of cannons, the Aurochs Mk.III also had four forward-firing 0.303" Browning machine guns in the outer starboard wing and another two Brownings in the portside wing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 27, 2018, 03:27:10 AM
Love all the recent posts. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on June 27, 2018, 03:37:48 AM
Love these recent posts.  The Battle variants would definitely give me ideas for whiffing the kit I have, if I didn't already have plans for a Battle GR.VI in mind.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2018, 03:40:22 AM
Cheers folks :) Looking forward to seeing what the Battler GR.VI looks like ;)

Here's another ... a RW (but unbuilt) project - the Koolhoven F.K.56 L.V.B.

I know next to nothing about this project. It was put forward in early February 1940 and the 3-view drawing shows obvious changes from the original, February 1939 production-model F.K.56 combat trainer. Notable changes are mainly F.K.58-type features - tailplane, pilot's canopy, lower fuselage profile, etc. Another difference was the adoption of a neater main undercarriage. ( Of course an even simpler explanation for these 'differences' might be that NV Vliegtuigenfabriek Koolhoven hired crap technical artists  :P )

To my eye, the engine also seems to be of slightly larger diameter than the Wright R-975E3 radial of the 1939 production F.K.56. The rear exhaust location rules out Bristol types. So, perhaps a Pratt & Whitney Wasp R-1340? [1]

At first, I thought that L.V.B. might be for 'Lichte Verkenner Bommenwerper' (since the revised design was obviously intended to take on a secondary light bomber role). It was then pointed out to me that L.V.B. likely stood for the LuchtVaartBedrijf (or 'Aviation Company') a technical office component of the LVA.

_________________________

[1] Diameter for the R-1340 was 51.75 inches versus 45.0 inches for the R-975 Whirlwind.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 30, 2018, 04:50:32 AM
Curtiss P-53 Sabrehawk

No backstory here. Somewhere, I came across a mention of the '1/72nd' Monogram 'Mini Masterpieces' Curtiss P-40N kit actually scaling out at 1/66th. That's quite a difference!

Here's the approximate measurement that prompted this whif ...

P-40N (in 1/1 scale) = span 11.05 m ; length 9.653 m

P-40N 1/72nd scale = span ~158 mm ; length ~141 mm

P-40N 1/66th scale = span ~175 mm ; length ~157 mm

1/66 to 1/72 scale = span 12.60 m ; length 11.30 m

1/1 Hawker Tempest = span 12.00 m ; length 10.00 m

If I've got the arithmetic right, the 1/66 P-40N scales out to be even larger than a Tempest. So, into the oversized Curtiss goes a license-built Napier Sabre and, hey presto, the Curtiss P-53-1-CU Sabrehawk :D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on July 01, 2018, 06:09:25 AM
Nice!!  That would be one way to whif that model kit.  Loved the scrap view of a bubble canopy, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on July 01, 2018, 06:56:22 AM
Woooow that looks so great....awesome work !!! (https://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/113.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 08, 2018, 03:43:13 AM
Thanks folks  :D

Al Fresco Chinese Style - the Shenyang JJ-9 and J-9 Foo-Dog

When the Soviet MiG-19 fighter was introduced onto Chinese production lines as the J-6 (Jianjiji 6), it was clear to Shenyang designers that the days of their J-5 copy of the MiG-17 fighter were ending. Meanwhile, rival Factory No. 132 (Chengdu) had begun production of a J-5 based two-seat trainer derivative - the JJ-5 (Jianjiji Jiaolianji 5). [1] Chengdu were also about to introduce the advanced MiG-21F fighter to their production lines as the Mach 2-capable J-7 Fishbed. Shenyang was being squeezed out.

With the J-6 fighter about to be out-classed by the Chengdu J-7, Shenyang designers turned their attention to designing a superior J-5 based fighter trainer. In contrast with Chengdu's rather derivative design, the Shenyang JJ-9 concept mated J-5 components with more advanced features. The JJ-9 retained only the wings and empennage of the J-5 fighter. A new, slimmer fuselage was evolved to accomodate a Liming Wopen-6C axial-flow turbojet in the interest of commonality with the twin-engined J-6 fighter. [2] The WP-6C was a non-afterburning development of the Tumansky RD-9, producing 6,600 lbf in full military power. [3] Side engine intakes were used which allowed a lower forward cockpit for the student pilot (with a commensurately improved forward view for the instructor compared with the pitot-intaked JJ-2 and JJ-5).

The JJ-9 was ordered off the drawing board but only a dozen pre-production examples entered service with the air wing of the PLA in late 1967. Some minor development 'bugs' had to be worked out but, overall, the JJ-9 was a complete success. However, for reasons of its own, the PLA chose to replace the JJ-2s with simpler Chengdu JJ-5s. Orders for the Shenyang JJ-9 were cut back to a minimum with the developed JJ-9A model being cancelled outright.

(Top) The final pre-production Shenyang JJ-9 fighter-trainer in service with a PLAAF test unit.

Fortunately, a single-seat fighter derivative was in the works - the J-9. Shenyang received permission to continue development of this fighter for potential export to client states (such as Albania). As an export fighter, the J-9 was considered a J-5 Fresco replacement intended to be technologically simpler than the J-6 Farmer.

Later assigned the Western codename Foo-Dog, [4] the J-9 introduced the Liming Wopen-6D engine with a modest afterburner, bringing thrust up to 7,950 lbf for short bursts. Compared with the J-5, gun armament was reduced to only two 23mm Norinco Type 23-1 (Nudelman-Rikhter NR-23) cannons. This was made up for by installing twin launch rails for Zhuzhou PL-2 air-to-air missiles. [5] Radar ranging was provided by the rather unimaginatively named 'CL' set (from Ce-jÜ Lei-da or 'ranging radar' in Chinese). [6]

Progress on the Shenyang J-9 was brisk with the new fighter incorporating improvements planned for the unbuilt JJ-9A trainer (most obviously, the revised auxiliary air intakes for the Wopen-6D). Compared with the JJ-9, the J-9's cockpit was repositioned (to free space for the Type 23-1 guns and their ammunition). At the request of the PLAAF, the J-9 also incorporated the canopy from the J-7 fighter. [7] The prototype J-9 flew in the Summer of 1968.

Since the J-9 wings and empennage used the same jigs as the J-5, the production line change over to the new fighter was comparatively quick. Procurement discussions were underway with Albanian officials but these would be interrupted by a new directive from Beijing. Effective immediately, all J-9 production was to be redirected to the People's Republic of Vietnam. The highly manoeuvrable, missile-armed Foo-dog was going to war.

(Bottom) '3061', a Shenyang F-9 Foo-Dog-A of the Vietnamese 923rd Fighter Regiment based at Tho Xuan in September 1969. This aircraft carries Russian-made R-3S missiles. [8]

_________________________

[1] The Chengdu design grafted the two-seat cockpit from the earlier JJ-2 trainer (a Soviet MiG-15UTI copy) onto the J-5 airframe.

[2] A secondary goal was to allow Liming to cease production of Klimov-based centrifugal-flow turbojets while joining Chengdu Aircraft Engines in producing the new WP-7 engine for the J-7 fighter.

[3] Compared with the J-5, military power was only increased by 650 lbf but this added to the performance advantage inherent in the JJ-9's reduced frontal area.

[4] The name Foo-Dog came from the 'Lion Dog' statues displayed at the entrance to Chinese Buddhist temples. Perhaps inevitably, the J-9s were usually redubbed 'Foo-Fighters' by US forces in Vietnam.

[5] The J-5's third, Type 37 (Nudelman N-37) cannon was eliminated to save weight and simplify ammunition logistics for client state air forces. The PL-2 was a Chinese copy of the Soviet R-3S (as per MiG-17), aka AA-2 Atoll-A infrared-guided missile. An add-on belly pack was available with a single Type 37 or twin Type 23-1 guns (although the weight of this installation precluded any missile armament).

[6] The CL 'ranging radar' was a copy of the Soviet SRD-5MN Baza-6 set intended for the Chengdu J-7.

[7] The incorporation of this MiG-21F canopy revealed PLAAF ponderings on the J-9 as a potential single-seat 'lead-in' advanced trainer for the Chengdu J-7.

[8] Chinese PL-2s were still under-going PLA trials at this time. Full production of the PL-2 at Zhuzhou would not begin until August 1970.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on July 08, 2018, 04:00:01 AM
Plausible and attractive; I enjoyed this entry in alternate history.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 08, 2018, 04:23:49 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 09, 2018, 02:33:06 AM
I really like your Sabrehawk!

Looks sleek and menacing!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 09, 2018, 03:32:23 AM
Developing a MiG-15 variant with a pointy nose.  Who could have imagined such a thing?  Really looks quite plausible and it makes you wonder if this could have become a more potent adversary in real life.  Adding AAM to the mix certainly gives it a more dangerous look. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on July 09, 2018, 07:31:25 AM
Looks like a baby Fantan (not surprisingly).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 09, 2018, 08:40:49 AM
Who could have imagined such a thing?


MiG  ;D :icon_fsm:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/sn.html (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/attack/sn.html)

(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/attack/mig17sn/mig17sn-2.jpg)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on July 09, 2018, 11:45:20 AM
Thanks Jon.  That looks like it started out as a MiG-17.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 10, 2018, 04:00:46 AM
Thanks folks  :D

Jon: Cheers, I'd forgotten about the MiG-17SN  :-[  I love those pivoting guns (it's amazing how often the Real World turns out to much weirder than what-ifs!). Anyway, it looks like Messrs. Mikoyan and Gurevich beat my Chinese 'innovation' by about 15 years  :-[

... Adding AAM to the mix certainly gives it a more dangerous look.

Thanks Jeffry! BTW, RW North Vietnamese MiG-17s could carry a pair of K-13 missiles too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2018, 09:03:00 AM
Updating the 'Bou

After several failed efforts to procure a replacement for aging Australian Caribou transports, Defence chose to examine the possibility of modernized their DHC-4A airframes including the installation of new turboprop powerplants. This task was assigned to Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

Two re-engining options were examined by CAC. The first involved 'upside down' General Electric T-64 turboprops akin to the YT-64-GE-4 turboprops tested on first prototype Caribou airframe back in 1961. The second option involved a turboprop derivative of the Lycoming T55 engine which powered the RAAF's CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

A key consideration for powerplant choice was commonality with in-service engines. A turboprop transport closely related to the Caribou was the DHC-5 Buffalo. These aircraft were powered GE CT64-820-4 turboprops which were closely related to the T64 turboshafts of RAN Seaking helicopters. The proposed Avco (Lycoming) LTC4C-10 was, as mentioned, an evolution of the T55 turboshaft. [1]

Avco Australian undertook development of the TP55-M-10AU (military designation for the LTC4C-10). Core parts were supplied by both Avco US (from 'L-series engines) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (from 'K-series engines). The turboprop gearbox was an entirely Avco AU product - although it was effectively a much-strengthened derivative of the earlier Lycoming YT55-L-9 transmission. [2] Staff from Avco AU and CAC work together to create the prototype TP55 installation on RAAF Caribou '210'.

The prototype engine installation was regarded as a success but further work was undertaken to refine the design. On the prototype, an S-curved 'swan's neck' pipe carried exhaust gases up to exit above the wing. The upper wing plating in line with this hot efflux was replaced with stainless steel sheeting. Although a simple 'fix', this arrangement also greatly increased the Turbo-Caribou's infrared signature.

Work was begun on a revised exhaust system for 'production' Turbo-Caribou conversions. This system routed the exhaust through a diffuser, mixing the hot gases with cool air from new intake ducts flanking the exhaust duct. This flattened diffuser ended just before the flaps providing a modest degree of surface blowing of those control surfaces. After successful trials, RAAF Caribous were cycled through CAC for heavy maintenance, engine conversions, and systems upgrades - including new radar, avionics, and 'glass' cockpits.

________________________________________________________

[1] The T55 is a free-turbine helicopter turboshaft with five axial compressor stages (plus one centrifugal stage) and no reduction gearing. The TP55 turboprop has seven axial stages and a gearbox.

[2] The 2,455 ehp YT55-L-9 powered the Piper PA-48 Enforcer. That engine could be viewed as a 'big brother' to the T53-L-3 turboprop employed on the Grumman Mohawk.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 26, 2018, 04:45:43 PM
Ooh! Turbou looks good! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 27, 2018, 05:14:27 AM
My goodness but do those Supermarine Type 222s have some very lovely, streamlined spats!
 :-* :-* :-* :-*
I will be coming back to look at these marvels again I think.

Your other work is fantastic as well. It's always a treat to see what you've been up to.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 28, 2018, 02:30:18 AM
Thanks folks! And Brian, here's more trousered Supermarines  ;)
_____________________________________________________

Were it not for its connection to the Spitfire, Supermarine's Type 224 fighter would be all but forgotten. Developed to Air Ministry Specification F.7/30, the Type 224 was flown in 1932 and then delivered to Martlesham Heath for trials. The single-seat fighter was judged overly large, lacking in manoeuvrability, and powered by a troublesome engine - the Roll-Royce Goshawk steam-cooled V-12.

When returned to Supermarine, the fighter was rebuilt as a two-seater - the Type 224C - to meet Air Ministry Specification P.30/32 for a divebomber also capable of performing tactical support. This spec was meant as a complement to P.27/32 for a conventional light day bomber - the Fairey Battle, P.30/32 demanded a relatively high performance with points for an airframe based upon an inservice type. Supermarine used the Type 224's extended tenure at RAF Martlesham Heath to claim that aircraft as an inservice type. [1] The rebuilt Supermarine Type 224C was returned to RAF Martlesham Heath for renewed trials.

Modifications to the Type 224 fighter were kept to a minimum. The fuselage was slightly extended to accommodate a lighter Rolls-Royce Kestrel V engine and a second cockpit for the rear gunner. Forward-firing armament was reduced to two machine guns and flaps were introduced to the now metal-skinned wings. [2] Germain to the divebombing role was the mounting of pivoting stub-wings on the undercarriage fairings to act as dive brakes. Main armament was a swinging crutch-mounted 500 lb GP bomb (or a 250 lb GP on the crutch with up to 4 x 50 lb bombs on outer wing racks).

[Top] The Supermarine 224C (K3660) divebomber prototype upon its arrival at RAF Martlesham Heath

The Martlesham Health report criticized the pivoting dive brakes - that installation proving both ineffectual and to be the cause of extreme buffeting - and the new cockpit arrangement - the rear cockpit being extremely cramped while the side-hinged transparent hood did not afford the pilot a clear view on landing. Although the Type 224C was to be a temporary type, its dive brakes clearly needed redesigning. However, Supermarine had already planned for a more capacious rear cockpit and it was a simple matter to modify the pilot's canopy to slide aft for landings.

The Type 224C was also underpowered. To address this, the prototype was re-engined with a new 990 hp Merlin C. Pending solving of the dive brake issue, Supermarine was given another contract for the production of 20 Type 224Cs to be known as the Spectre in RAF service. [3] Rather than attempt to iron out problems with the pivoting stub-wings, Supermarine 'borrowed' a solution from contemporary US Northrop designs. The outer portions of the new wing flaps were perforated to act as dive brakes. The Air Ministry accepted this approach and production began.

The Supermarine Spectre Mk.I entered RAF service in early 1936. On production models, the  fixed, forward-firing armament consisted of two wing-mounted Vickers machine guns and a flexibly-mounted Lewis gun in the rear cockpit (although the latter was often not fitted in service). The 'Spinster' divebomber performed the role for which it was designed but was never popular with crews. The Merlin I-powered Spectre Mk.I equipped only one RAF squadron before being withdrawn from service in the early 1938.

Shortly after the Spectre's withdrawl, reports on German use of their Stuka in Spain began to be taken seriously by RAF intelligence. Planners mused on whether the Spectre might not be used in training to familiarized RAF fighter pilots with the interception of such divebombers. By the end of 1938, the Spectres had been returned to Supermarine for a refit and modernization. [4] Work proceeded slowly with Supermarine needing to give priority to its Spitfire fighters. Extra urgency came with the declaration of war on Germany.

The events of September 1939 fully vindicated the German Stuka and the RAF switch emphasis on the Spectre rebuild to a fully operational service type. Although only 15 Spectres would be upgraded to full Mk.II standard, the goal was to fill a capability gap and train crews until the RAF's Merlin-Skua divebombers came into service. In the end, the rebuilt Spectres re-entered service in July 1940 - just in time for anti-invasion duty. After the invasion scare receded, the Spectre squadron was stood down and the remaining aircraft transferred to target-tug duties.

[Bottom] Merlin-engined Supermarine Spectre Mk.II in late August 1940 (note 'gas patch' on upper rear fuselage)

__________________________________

[1] Hawker submitted a slightly-strengthened Hart biplane for P.30/32 although this aircraft failed to meet the Specification's top speed requirements.

[2] The wings were strengthened through the use of thicker-gauge metal covering (which also replaced the aft-of-spar wing fabric). The false rear spar was also beefed up.

[3] Supermarine has proposed the name Surefire for the Type 224C but this was rejected.

[4] The most noticable external changes were enlarged rudders and new canopies - a bulged Spitfire-style pilot's hood and moulded rear canopies replacing the earlier 'birdcage' type. Obvious on the ground were the new three-bladed de Havilland variable-speed propellers replacing the fixed-pitch Watts two-bladers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 28, 2018, 06:56:22 AM
Like the 'bou and the Supermarine
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 28, 2018, 09:43:12 AM
Those 224Cs are great and they look like they flew in from Of Things to Come.

Your ideas about Merlin powered Stukas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Oh and my what lovely spats you have there!
 :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 01, 2018, 03:16:06 AM
Over on Secret Projects there's a thread on the Hughes H-1 racer with mention of 1939-1940 proposals for a fighter derivative.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,322.msg332989.html#msg332989 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,322.msg332989.html#msg332989)

By that time, ownership of the H-1 had been transferred to Timm Aircraft. Initially, Timm proposed redesigning the Hughs airframe for construction in 'non-strategic' wood: "The Timm Aircraft Corp. will build a Howard Hughes pursuit racer from sprucewood impregnated with phenolic resin." My take on a near-completed wooden Timm Pursuit (just prior to filling/sanding panel seams) is shown at top.

According to Jon, "in 1940 a desultory effort was made to modify the aircraft into an all-metal fighter. Nothing came of the project and that was the end of the H-1 as fighter story." I leave it to the viewer to decide whether the bottom sideview is that metal pursuit or just the wooden fighter given a silver finish and a thick coat of polish. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 01, 2018, 04:16:16 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 01, 2018, 10:48:09 AM
It's not far removed in shape from the Vought F4U Corsair, is it. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 01, 2018, 03:36:50 PM
That's a fantastic idea which you've realized most wonderfully!

The wooden one reminds me of those W.W. I Albatross fighters with wooden fuselages and looking at the metal version makes me imagine it in war-time camouflage.

Excellent work, especially on the wood and metal! The rudder stripes and anti-glare panel are most well done.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 02, 2018, 09:06:44 AM
Thanks folks!

Daryl J. suggested an IAR 80 WHIF featuring a spatted fixed undercarriage, 2-bladed propeller, and an open cockpit with a faired in headrest.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=185.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=185.0)

Sounded like a PZL P.11 update to me! (BTW: Daryl also suggested cloth-covered wings. That I couldn't get behind since metal-skinned monoplane wings were a distinctive feature of PZL's gull-winged fighters.)

Here's my take on Daryl's concept.

(Top) Factory-fresh I.A.R.60 fighter at IAR Brasov, March 1938. This aircraft is armed with two synchronized 13.2 mm FN-Brownings in the fuselage sides and a single 7.9 mm machine gun in each wing.

(Bottom) FARR I.A.R.62 fitted with German light-bomb rack, Ukraine, 1942. The updated I.A.R.62s were I.A.R.61 fighter-bombers rebuilt with some components from the higher-powered I.A.R.80 series.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 02, 2018, 05:11:53 PM
You just know how to set my heart all a-flutter with such incredibly streamlined, spatted landing gear!
 :-* :-* :-*
The IAR-80 is such a natural for this and I'm applauding your limitless imagination for thinking of it and your incredible talent at rendering it so convincingly!
 :-* :-* :-*
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on August 03, 2018, 12:37:50 AM
I always loved the look of the IAR 15 and wished it had been produced in series.  Your IAR 60s capture the look of a developed IAR 15 even though they are based on the PZL platform.  Love 'em!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 03, 2018, 01:00:15 AM
I always loved the look of the IAR 15 and wished it had been produced in series.  Your IAR 60s capture the look of a developed IAR 15 even though they are based on the PZL platform.  Love 'em!
My thoughts exactly!!!
The IAR-60 is the link between IAR-15 and IAR-80....it's just awesome !!!
Great job...absolutely great !!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 04, 2018, 07:37:57 AM
Thanks folks! The IAR 15 was exactly what I was going for   ;)  In a sense, the IAR 80 was Carafoli's revenge for the IAR 15 being rejected  :D

Barnes Aviation NRB-4X Navy Racer

When the British Supermarine S.6B 'retired' the Schneider Trophy in 1931, the US Navy weighed its options for future air racing. The USN's Bureau of Aeronautics decided to put a modest amount of resources in to preparing for a possible resumption of the Schneider racers. To this end, the BuAer contacted Barnes Aviation about the development potential of its tandem-engined BF-4D amphibian monoplane.

Studies by Barnes, the US Navy, and NACA confirmed that the BF-4D could be convincingly modified into a speed-record floatplane racer. The BF-4D's twin cockpits were replaced by a single pilot under a flush canopy. For take-off and landing, the pilot would pivot the cockpit covering into a windscreen and raise his seat for visibility. For added streamlining, the BF-4D's wing struts were replaced by wire bracing.

The powerplant arrangement would stay essentially the same - twin V-12s driving variable-pitch, contra-rotating propellers - but the twin Barnes diesel V-12s would be replaced by supercharged petrol engines. The BuAer accepted Barnes' redesign and issued a contract for a single example of this BF-4R as the Navy's NRB-4X. The unflown prototype NRB-4X was delivered by road to NAS Pensacola in April 1934.

Barnes Aviation NRB-5X Navy Racer

Unfortunately, the radical Barnes NRB-4X would prove unflyable. Engine heat made the cramped cockpit almost uninhabitable. On the water, visibility from 'the hotbox' was appalling. On it first high-speed taxi tests, the NRB-4X's starboard wing float began to retract. Fortunately, the USN test pilot had the presence of mind to slam the throttles closed and use the ailerons to keep the wings level until speed died off. When the aircraft finally came to a stop, the starboard wing dipped below the waves and dug into the bottom.

A redesign was needed for Barnes' Navy Racer. The first order of business was the damaged wing. Rather than repairing the original, a stiffer cantilever wing was substituted. At the same time, the trouble-prone retractable wing floats were abandoned in favour of strut-braced replacements. Controllability was improved with the application of a greatly enlarged tail fin and rudder. The cockpit was also redesigned - being moved aft and fitted with a slightly raised canopy for better visibility.

I leave the rest to the viewer. Did the Barnes NRB-5X sit idly with no races to run? Or did this new Navy Racer ace a rejuvenated Schneider Cup?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 04, 2018, 09:52:18 AM
Next to spats, those floats have got to be the second sleekest, most aerodynamic landing gear yet devised!

Those birds look wicked fast and are a master class in streamlining.

Great stuff!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 06, 2018, 04:17:50 AM
Wicked
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 08, 2018, 04:49:17 AM
Thanks folks! Alas, Brian, no floats (or spats) this time  :(

Barnes Aviation BF-17 Super Snorter

The Barnes Navy Racer proved to be a developmental dead-end. Racer design concepts did play a part in the development of an improved BF-4D Snorter amphibian - Bill Barnes' retractable main float BF-7A Silver Lancer. However, Barnes Aviation also developed a more conventional, less mechanically-complex design for the military market. This was the BF-17A Super Snorter two-seat fighter and reconnaissance aircraft.

The BF-17A Super Snorter was powered by a single 1,050 hp Barnes B12GM V-12 (although a B12D diesel was available as an optional fit). The Super Snorter was designed for maximum speed and, to that end, the prototype was equipped with evaporative cooling. This system worked quite well but potential military customers regarded evaporative cooling as excessively vulnerable to combat damage.

The prototype was fitted with conventional radiators as the BF-17B. After being being armed with a 37mm LeTourneau motor-cannon, the prototype was loaned to the US Army Air Corps for armaments trials. The prototype was later rebuilt as the twin-tailed BF-17C and supplied to the Republic of China Air Force. An order for an additional dozen BF-17C-2 models followed.

The BF-17C-2 was the fastest and most heavily-armed fighter in Chinese service. These aircraft were delivered with a five gun fixed armament of twin synchronized 7.92 mm Brownings and three 13.2mm Brownings - one firing through the propeller spinner and one in each wing, firing outside the propeller arc. In service, the wing guns were usually removed to improve performance. Still, the BF-17C-2 was a 'hot ship' and attrition due to pilot error was very high. Most Chinese Super Snorters were written off in their first year of service.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 08, 2018, 08:01:34 AM
Your Super Snorters are very nice, very nice indeed.

The Chinese one looks loaded for bear.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 08, 2018, 09:35:53 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 09, 2018, 03:34:28 AM
Not whifs, but my take on three Saab Viggen proposals for the RAF.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=3lu2ir0vr8sr90v2p7tf6m45h0&topic=791.msg110720#msg110720 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=3lu2ir0vr8sr90v2p7tf6m45h0&topic=791.msg110720#msg110720)

Saab's 'least mod' 37-XE-1 was basically a standard Swedish AJ37 Viggen airframe adapted to take a single uprated Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan - the RB.168-62R.

The 37-XE-2 was to be powered by a Bristol Olympus 22R. [2] The 37-XE-2 airframe was similar to the 37-XE-1 but with a longer afterbody and a slight forward fuselage stretch - via a plug between the wing and canard surfaces.

The Saab 37-XE-3 proposal was a major redesign of the basic Viggen airframe. The 37-XE-3 would have a considerable forward fuselage stretch and a completely revised rear fuselage to accommodate twin Rolls-Royce RB.193 engines. [3] These 3-shaft turbofans, related to the Bristol BS.53, were developed with MAN for the VFW/Fokker 191B VTOL fighter.

Obviously, none of these 'British Viggen' proposals were accepted by the MoD or RAF.

______________________________

[1] The RB.168-62R would have given a service 37-XE-1 a degree of engine commonality with the RAF's Blackburn Buccaneers and F-4M Phantoms. Another uprated Spey - the RB.168-89R - was a candidate engine for the AST.403 Harrier/Jaguar replacement programme.

[2] The BSEL Olympus 22R - aka Olympus Mk.320 or BOl.22R - was the turbojet chosen for the TSR.2. The Olympus 22R could produce 30,610 lbf in reheat at sea level.

[3] Rolls-Royce also had hopes for commonality for its RB.193. A '4-poster' vectored-lift version of the RB.193 was offered as the 'New Pegasus' 11-61 for the Harrier II.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 09, 2018, 06:56:40 AM
Looks a natural in RAF colors and I especially like the bottom one.

Excellent work and very easy on the eyes too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 10, 2018, 02:00:40 AM
The Bill Barnes profiles are great.   :smiley:  :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 10, 2018, 02:55:03 AM
Thanks folks  :D

Commonwealth Aircraft Winjeel Turboprop Derivatives

The Commonwealth Aircraft CA-25 Winjeel was a 2-to-3 seat trainer which entered RAAF service in 1955. Intended as a basic to advanced trainer, the Winjeel was the RAAF's last single-piston-engined training aircraft. It was planned that the Winjeel would be replaced by the Macchi MB-326 as part of the RAAF's 'all through' jet training concept. But this never happened.

Studies showed that a propeller-driven 'medium' training aircraft was still required to keep attrition to an acceptably low standard. By 1970, however, the performance of the aging Winjeels was seen as totally inadequate for such a role. Commonwealth revived an earlier proposal for a turboprop-powered Winjeel. [1] To test the airframe's potential, CAC rebuilt one RAAF aircraft (CA25-22, A85-422) as the turboprop-powered CA-25T Turbo-Winjeel.

'Pinnochio', as the sole CA-25T Turbo-Winjeel was inevitably dubbed, was fitted with a 500 shp PT6A-6/C20 turboprop [2] in a DHC-2T Turbo-Beaver cowling provided by engine-maker, Pratt & Whitney Canada. The CA-25T modifications were seen as a success, serving to prove the general concept. However, the Turbo-Winjeel also revealed the limitations of the quarter-century-old Winjeel airframe. To provide a suitable turboprop 'medium' trainer for the RAAF, considerable redesign would be required.

A review of potential Winjeel replacements recommended the Beech T-34C Turbo-Mentor with the as-yet unflown Pilatus PC-7 as backup. The latter was rejected by the RAAF as unproven. The T-34 airframe, on the other hand, dated back to the early 1950s - well-proven but conceptually older than the Winjeel it was meant to replace. The Turbo-Mentor was also criticized as being too small an airframe to take full advantage of the PT6A powerplant. Commonwealth proposed a new design based heavily upon the RAAF's proven CA-25 Winjeel airframe.

The new trainer design, designated CA-35 Bunjil, [3] was a joint project between CAC and Pilatus Flugzeugwerke. The latter was to supply components from its soon to be produced PC-7 - canopy and cockpit fittings, engine mounts and cowling, and the retractable landing gear - which Commonwealth Aircraft would incorporate into a revised and strengthened Winjeel airframe. That airframe featured a narrower fuselage for its tandem seat cockpit and a large dorsal fin to added stability. [4] The powerplant was the same PT6A-20 engine used in RAAF Pilatus Turbo-Porter utility transports.

The CA-35 Bunjil entered RAAF service as medium trainers in early 1979, joining the PAC CT/4A Airtrainers which had taken up the basic training role in 1975.
_____________________________________

[1] This scheme was for a PT6A-powered agricultural derivative of the Winjeel as a follow-on to the Wirraway-based CA-28 Ceres. This proposed agricultural CA-25 was never built.

[2] The PT6A-6/C20 was an available PT6A-6 engine brought up to PT6A-20 standards.

[3] Bunjil is an Aboriginal creator deity. The Kulin nation of central Victoria depict Bunjil as an eaglehawk.

[4] Flight trials quickly revealed the need for more side area. A substantial ventral fin was added to the Bunjil prototype and then became a recognition feature of production-model CA-35s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on August 10, 2018, 03:59:12 AM
Looks a natural in RAF colors and I especially like the bottom one.

Excellent work and very easy on the eyes too!

Brian da Basher

What Brian said. Great ideas for future builds.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 10, 2018, 06:58:30 AM
Your CA-35 Bunjil looks every bit the business and brings to mind the SA Bulldog.

Great stuff! Your talent is off the charts!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 11, 2018, 06:21:35 AM
Outstanding on all of these, especially the Viggens
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 11, 2018, 01:18:14 PM
Outstanding on all of these, especially the Viggens
+1

Interesting Viggens, I like the look of the 37-X-2, but wonder how it would do with a RM8D, being similar to the other RM8 versions, but based on the aerodynamically improved bits from the JT8D-200 series engines (perhaps with a slightly cropped fan to work with the existing intake mass flows and dimensions).  Another what-if with British engines would be an afterburning RB.142 Medway.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 12, 2018, 04:05:09 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: On the Medway, do mean an afterburning version retaining the RB.142's vectoring thrust nozzles?

It seems that, at the time, interest in the Medway was being eclipsed by the Spey. Of course, the The RB.177 (advanced Medway) was originally in the running to power the Viggen. According to Flight, the "Lack of British Government support swung the balance in favour of [P&W]."

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%201015.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%201015.html)

I suspect that the outcome was more complicated than that. The Swedes rightly wanted a proven core and one that wouldn't leave them operating an 'orphan'. The RAF not ordering any aircraft powered by the RB.177 was likely a big part of what pushed Sweden towards the JT8D.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 12, 2018, 04:06:29 AM
Back to the 'Bou ...

Updating the 'Bou (Two)

Another take on re-engining the Australian Caribou fleet. This time, instead of the Avco (Lycoming) LTC4C-10, I'm going more Real World ... kinda.

Here, the RAAF transports receivetwin 2,850 hp GE T64-GE-4 turboprops. These are the same powerplants as were installed in the first prototype Caribou airframe when modified as an engine testbed in September 1961. [1] As on that testbed, the GE T64s are 'inverted' with their exhaust pipes routed above the wings.

Other than revised nacelles and engine mounts, the only major change was the blanking-off of the forwardmost cabin windows - which happened to be in line with the propeller discs. The complete aircraft has also been fitted with the nose radome from the related DHC-5 Buffalo.

________________________________________________________

[1] Although photographed in RCAF markings, the YT64 flight tests for the US Navy for whom the GE engine was being developed. The Canadian Department of Defence Production was co-sponsor for this project.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 12, 2018, 02:51:08 PM
Thanks folks!

Evan: On the Medway, do mean an afterburning version retaining the RB.142's vectoring thrust nozzles?

It seems that, at the time, interest in the Medway was being eclipsed by the Spey. Of course, the The RB.177 (advanced Medway) was originally in the running to power the Viggen. According to Flight, the "Lack of British Government support swung the balance in favour of [P&W]."

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%201015.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1962/1962%20-%201015.html)

I suspect that the outcome was more complicated than that. The Swedes rightly wanted a proven core and one that wouldn't leave them operating an 'orphan'. The RAF not ordering any aircraft powered by the RB.177 was likely a big part of what pushed Sweden towards the JT8D.
No, one without the vectoring thrust nozzles; let's not make things over-complicated.  What's really funny is that the JT8D likely would not have originated, or at least not as early, if it wasn't for RR's arrogance.  They had the original engine the 727 was designed around (from size, I'd have to say the Medway) and their refusal to build a US support and overhaul facility meant that a strong early user of the 727 was going to back out due to getting burned by poor support of the Dart engines on the Viscount used by that airline.  Boeing got frantic and called P&W who managed to whip up a fan engine with a J52 core (if you look, the J52 is classed as a JT8B by P&W) and the rest is history.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Damian on August 13, 2018, 12:28:22 AM
Back to the 'Bou ...

Updating the 'Bou (Two)

Another take on re-engining the Australian Caribou fleet. This time, instead of the Avco (Lycoming) LTC4C-10, I'm going more Real World ... kinda.

Here, the RAAF transports receivetwin 2,850 hp GE T64-GE-4 turboprops. These are the same powerplants as were installed in the first prototype Caribou airframe when modified as an engine testbed in September 1961. [1] As on that testbed, the GE T64s are 'inverted' with their exhaust pipes routed above the wings.

Other than revised nacelles and engine mounts, the only major change was the blanking-off of the forwardmost cabin windows - which happened to be in line with the propeller discs. The complete aircraft has also been fitted with the nose radome from the related DHC-5 Buffalo.

________________________________________________________

[1] Although photographed in RCAF markings, the YT64 flight tests for the US Navy for whom the GE engine was being developed. The Canadian Department of Defence Production was co-sponsor for this project.

I would imagine that it wuld have the potential to make a rather nifty gunship.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 14, 2018, 06:08:20 AM
No, one without the vectoring thrust nozzles; let's not make things over-complicated.  What's really funny is that the JT8D likely would not have originated, or at least not as early, if it wasn't for RR's arrogance.  They had the original engine the 727 was designed around (from size, I'd have to say the Medway) and their refusal to build a US support and overhaul facility meant that a strong early user of the 727 was going to back out due to getting burned by poor support of the Dart engines on the Viscount used by that airline.  Boeing got frantic and called P&W who managed to whip up a fan engine with a J52 core (if you look, the J52 is classed as a JT8B by P&W) and the rest is history.

Yep, British aerospace and Boeing were well entangled over the 727. IIRC, Boeing was originally considering licensing the earliest-version D.H.121. BEA then insisted on a redesign making the Trident much smaller. Boeing wisely went ahead with something more akin to the original DH.121 in scale.

When announced, the 727 was offered with either the 12,750 lbf Rolls-Royce/Allison AR 963 (RB.163 Spey) or the JT8D. Seems that there were no takers for the Americanized Spey. (One article I read attributed that to previous poor US support for the Dart turboprop. Oddly, the R-R Conway was popular on CP Air DC-8s ... maybe R-R support was better in the Commonwealth?)

As for the Viggen powerplant choice, that contest was Rolls-Royce's to lose. In Not Much of an Engineer, Stanley Hooker defends the top brass at R-R but, in hindsight, the management do appear as a bunch of Muppets  :P

I would imagine that it wuld have the potential to make a rather nifty gunship.

Oh that's in the cards  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 14, 2018, 06:29:38 AM
Okay, I blew this one. Only once I'd gone too far did I realize that I placed the engine waaay too low. Oh well, what can ya do  :P

The Blackburn Blackfish Carrier Fighter

Air Ministry Specification N.9/38 was a rather demanding requirement for a Gloster Sea Gladiator replacement. AM Spec N.9/38 stipulated that the new fighter be powered by the new Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 engine (for which the Fleet Air Arm had priority). The Specification asked for a heavy, single-seat aircraft - what would later be termed a 'strike fighter'. For its attack role, at least one 40mm autocannon was demanded along with detachable bomb racks.

Blackburn Aircraft answered N.9/38 with its Blackfish carrier-borne naval fighter monoplane, based around Rolls-Royce's extension shaft concept for the Griffon V-12. The cannon armament was accommodated by a 'hollow' propeller shaft allowing the gun to fire through the prop hub (a la the US Bell Airacobra). This arrangement resulted in a weight penalty but suited a carrier aircraft in placing the cockpit well forward to provide good visibility over a comparatively slender nose.

The Admiralty was very nervous about an untried engine combined with a complex drive system. However, the Blackburn submission gained favour through its inclusion of a number of airframe components in common with Blackburn's existing carrier types - the Skua divebomber and the Roc turret fighter. [1] Both of these earlier types were to be eclipsed in both service and production lines by the new Blackfish attack fighter.

Concern over a new engine in a radical arrangement proved warranted. Despite using some existing components, the prototype Blackfish did not fly until late 1940. The powerplant was a unique Rolls-Royce Griffon IES (RG1SM-ES) which was underpowered and overweight. Armament was no better than the Sea Gladiator - a mere four wing-mounted 0.303" guns (with Rolls only able to provide a mockup of its 40mm autocannon). It was not until the end of 1940 that the definative 1,730 hp Griffon IIBES (RG2SM-ES) engine was installed along with a non-firing example of the Rolls-Royce cannon.

Plans for a production Blackfish Mk.I died with the aborted Griffon I. The Blackfish Mk.II, following the pattern of the upgraded prototype, entered production in the summer of 1941. The Mk.IIs were employed as operational trials aircraft. Two conclusions were quickly drawn - the Blackfish was too large and heavy for routine carrier use, and the stipulated 40mm autocannon was all too prone to jamming. The slightly revised Blackfish Mk.IIa adopted a dorsal fin to improve control while landing on. Armament was changed to the more reliable 20mm British Hispano cannons. [2]

The Blackfish came in to its own with the Mk.IV model based on Malta. [3] Exclusively a land-based fighter, the Blackfish Mk.IV dispensed with carrier equipment as a weight savings. Armament changed again. The Mk.IV returned to the four 0.303" Brownings and a 40mm autocannon. But, now, the nose cannon was the less jam-prone Vickers gun. The Vickers 40mm proved devastating against light surface craft and equally effective against intercepted bombers. The latter was a rare occurance, however. The Blackfish never attained the promised performance [4] and was eclipsed by the superior, two-seat Fairey Firefly in Admiralty plans.

_________________________

[1] The Blackfish wing centre section was common to both the Skua and Roc. Skua outer wing panels were used unchanged other than the tips being 'clipped'. The rear fuselage of the Blackfish was based upon the earlier types but all tail surfaces were enlarged.

[2] The 20mm Hispano was mounted in both the propeller hub and inner wing gun positions. The 0.303" Brownings were retained in the outboard wing gun positions.

[3] The Blackfish Mk.III was a project for a float fighter derivative which remained unbuilt.

[4] Hyperboly over anticipated Blackfish performance led to the pilots' nickname of 'Blatherskite'. Overstrained carrier deck crews simply dubbed the Blackburn fighter 'the Brute'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 14, 2018, 07:28:38 AM
That engine's not low, there's gearing involved!

Great stuff! I like the Boos too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 15, 2018, 01:39:25 AM
Great job.... :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
In the folder I made with your work I count about 266...truly inspirational....
Thank you man !!!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 15, 2018, 06:25:45 AM
Thanks guys!

Alex: 266  :o   Diagnosis = Obsessive Compulsive Disorder ... or maybe just too much time on my hands  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 16, 2018, 05:45:51 AM
I guess this is '267'?  :P

Updating the 'Bou (Three)

The most radical re-engining concept for the RAAF Caribou fleet came as a Private Venture proposal from Hawker de Havilland Australia. In this scheme, the piston engined DHC-4s were to be transformed into STOL jet transports. The original Caribou engines would be replaced by vectoring-thrust Rolls-Royce Pegasus BE.53/2 turbofans in  nacelles derived from those of the still-born Dornier Do 31E. [1]

HdH began work at its Bankstown NSW plant on a privately-procured DHC-4A to convert this airframe to 'Pegasus-Caribou' standards. Other than changing nacelle mounts to suit the DHC-4A wing, the engine installation caused no real difficulties. The aircraft did require a completely new main undercarriage [2] and HdH initiated a series of other changes and improvements to their prototype conversion. These included a 'glass' cockpit; a throughly rebuilt nose section (incorporating both weather radar and an E/O turret); and, to improve slow-speed control, upswept wingtips and auxiliary tail surfaces attached to the horizontal tailplane. [2]

(Top) Prototype 'Pegasus-Caribou' conversion prior to completion

The finished DHC-4P 'Pegasus-Caribou' conversion was unveiled at the 1988 Australian International Airshow at RAAF Richmond in NSW. The full performance of this prototype was not apparent as its underdeveloped main undercarriage was fixed in the 'down' position. However, some control problems had been revealed in slow-speed flying tests. The auxiliary tail surfaces proved to be much too small while the 'winglets' slowed rolling manoeuvres while hampering side-slipping. Standard DHC-4 wingtips were reintroduced and a series of different-sized experimental dorsal fins were introduced through the DHC-4P's flight testing phase.

Formal RAAF test flights were undertaken at RAAF Base Amberley - west of Brisbane - in the final configuration of the 'Pegasus-Caribou' prototype. By this stage, the auxiliary fins had been removed and a very large fibreglass dorsal fin had been adopted. A production-type retractable main undercarriage was installed along with a fully-function E/O turret. [3] After testing, RAAF planners concluded that the 'Pegasus-Caribou' was too complex and expensive to suit its requirement for a direct Caribou replacement. However, the type showed great promise for a dedicated assault transport for special forces.

A new specification was drawn up to match the 'Pegasus-Caribou' and orders issued for four aircraft with options for two more. To be known as the HdH-4P SASR Caribou, the RAAF type differed from the prototype in retaining the standard DHC-4 nose and being 'equipped for but not fitted with' much of their potential upgrades. Provision was made for future installation of weather radar radomes and for the fitting of twin E/O turrets on either side of the cockpit. [4]

In late 1990, the first 'production' SASR Caribou conversion was delivered to No 35 (Special Operations) Squadron based at RAAF Base Pearce, just north of Perth, WA. This basing was dictated by the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) being located at Swanbourne, WA. No 35 SO would eventually receive all six HdH-4Ps just in time to be divided into two permanent detachments - 'Det A' remained at RAAF Pearce to support Tactical Assault Group (West) with three SASR Caribou; 'Det B' went to RAAF Base Richmond north-west of Sydney to support the Tactical Assault Group (East). [5]


(Bottom) HdH-4P SASR Caribou in service with No 35 (SO) Squadron. This aircraft has Stage 3 upgrades including new nose radar, twin IAI POP200 E/O turrets installed, antennae fit, and defensive aid suite. [6]

________________________________________________________

[1] The German Do 31E was an experiment VTOL transport. Along with the thrust-vectoring Pegasus turbofans, the Do 31E also had wingtip-mounted lift-jet engines to provide vertical take-off. The short take-off 'Pegasus-Caribou' dispensed with such lift-jets.

[2] Tailoring the Rockwell 'glass' displays to the Caribou cockpit was the responsibility of HdH Systems Division co-located with the DSTO at Salisbury, SA.

[3] This Wescam MX-10 E/O replaced the dummy turret used as an aerodynamic 'shape' during earlier trials.

[3] The object of this installation approach was to allow the flight crew to dedicate on E/O turret to cockpit displays while SOF used the second E/O for tactical purposes. Alternatively, both E/Os could be employed to widen the swath of ground imaging.

[4] The core of Tactical Assault Group (West) was, of course, the SASR. The core of Tactical Assault Group (East) was the newly-formed 1st Commando Regiment. 1 Cdo Regt was based out of Randwick Barracks, Sydney.

[5] DAS included AN/ALR-69A RWR antennae (on each each of nose and above engine nacelles), IR jammers (mounts above engine nacelles, but not fitted here), and IR flare bays in the rear of each engine nacelle.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on August 16, 2018, 02:14:03 PM

waouh !

do-able in plastic?


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 17, 2018, 01:18:29 AM
(https://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/4.gif) (https://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/113.gif)
I bet I missed a few...(https://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/4.gif)...but yes,267 (https://usefulshortcuts.com/imgs/yahoo-smileys/1.gif)

Nice
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 17, 2018, 09:27:10 AM
Imagine the FOD issues with those podded Pegasus units.  :)

What aboot an upper wing mounted engine as seen on the Boeing YC-14 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YC-14) submission for the USAF Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) competition or the Antonov An-72 Coaler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-72)? 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 17, 2018, 09:49:37 AM
What a great concept!

I can just see it lifting off vertically from some hot LZ somewhere.

Your imagination is beyond impressive!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 17, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
Beautiful!!  Perhaps a contoured inlet for each engine to reduce the chances of FOD ingestion?  Something like what was done for the CFM56 on the 737?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 18, 2018, 07:24:39 AM
Thanks folks!

ericr: I would think quite 'do-able'. These a number of 1/72nd scale DHC-4s (I believe that the Hobbycraft and Kitech kits are quite similar) and Planet Models do a 1/72 resin Dornier Do 31E (PLT201). Amodel and OzMods do 1/44 Caribous while Anigrand does a combo-kit of German VTOL types (VAK.191B, VJ.101C, Do 29, and Do 31E). Some models might buy the Anigrand collection just for the fighters ... fodder for trades, maybe?

I can just see it lifting off vertically from some hot LZ somewhere.

Brian: Alas, the HdH-4P would be strictly STOL. If 0° were the straight-aft nozzle position for forward flight, for landing the nozzles would be angled down 45° or so (not the 90° needed for VTOL flight). As others have noted, this design would be vulnerable to FOD. In VTOL operations, you could add reingesting hot exhaust too.

Jeffry: Overwing engines might work using Avro Canada-style 'eyelid' diverters. But then you've got also got to do something about the cruciform taliplane. DHC went with a T-tail for their DHP-72 concept (and for modified DHC-5 models - but those may have just been for wind tunnel studies).

Evan: I like your contoured inlet concept. I wonder is screens might work? I recall seeing a photo of an EE Lightning fitted with a mesh stone guard. Perhaps such a thing could be made neatly retractable?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on August 18, 2018, 11:32:00 AM
I know this is kind of odd.  Back in 2012 you did a series of profiles on the so-called Supermarine Spiteful.  Is there any chance you could do a three view, or at least provide the dimensions, especially wingspan?

m'gwich
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 18, 2018, 10:28:01 PM
Thank you for the explanation, apophenia.

Modern stuff is not my forte` that's for sure. The closest I get to STOL/VTOL is the odd autogyro.

Looking forward to you latest,

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 19, 2018, 11:32:57 AM
Evan: I like your contoured inlet concept. I wonder is screens might work? I recall seeing a photo of an EE Lightning fitted with a mesh stone guard. Perhaps such a thing could be made neatly retractable?
Well, screens would work for ground running (I believe that was what they were used for with the EE Lightning but you need simple inlet contours, like those of the SU-27, for retractable screens to work.  I'm thinking a contoured inlet would be far simpler to design.  I can think of some other possibilities, but those require, again, more work.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 22, 2018, 06:53:53 AM
Thanks folks! Evan, it does sound like contoured inlets is the simplest way to go.

I know this is kind of odd.  Back in 2012 you did a series of profiles on the so-called Supermarine Spiteful.  Is there any chance you could do a three view, or at least provide the dimensions, especially wingspan?


Kim: Did you mean this one? http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg31443#msg31443 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg31443#msg31443)

As I recall, I had in mind an evolution akin to that of the RW Spiteful (other than beginning with a Buzzard engine). In the production version with the Griffon, dimensions would have been identical to the RW Spiteful.

BTW: My entry into the Anachronistic GB: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8080.msg144296#msg144296 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8080.msg144296#msg144296)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on August 22, 2018, 11:13:47 AM
Again, thanks.  I was thinking of a different direction.  From what I saw and caught my interest I thought first of a smaller and somewhat simplified version of the Spitfire, for export or license building.  This would be similar in concept to the Curtiss CW-21 and 75H, North American's P-64, and Vultee's P-66. 
From what I understand, the Spitfire's was an aerodynamic work of art, but difficult to make and therefore expensive.  When the 300 was first built in 1936, it was assumed that a war was coming, but no one knew when, or was sure who was going to be fighting, and on what side.  Also, no one imagined the length or scope of the war.  The Spitfire wing was was adequate for batches of 100 or so.   However, when when the war began and grew, it was suddenly as many as airplanes as you can make, as fast as you can make them.  This is why supermarine began looking for a simpler wing.  So, that's my idea, a cheaper alternative to the Spit, developed in parallel.  I still may do it. 
However, why the Buzzard engine?  This was developed in the 20s, and didn't get much interest even then.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 23, 2018, 03:12:39 AM
I like your simplified Spitfire concept ... especially as a CW-21 analogue! Would you be retaining some commonality or is this a clean-sheet design?

On the RW Spiteful, it seems to me that Joe Smith got himself into trouble with the production-version laminar-flow wings. For your concept, would a more conventional airfoil would be acceptable?

... However, why the Buzzard engine?  This was developed in the 20s, and didn't get much interest even then.

The Buzzard engine for my ur-Spiteful was just a stand-in until the similarly-sized Griffon was flight-worthy. I suppose, the prototype's powerplant might just have well been a de-tuned 'R' engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on August 24, 2018, 06:57:16 AM
Understand, this is just riffing off your ideas and artwork.  The CW-21 is the outlier here, the others were either decontented fighters or single seat versions of what then were called combat trainers.  I was thinking of narrowing the wing chord, and chopping the fuselage aft of the canopy, removing the fixed clear section.  I'd also simplify the wing curves somewhat,  along the lines of the late Spit wings.  Maybe say the later marks having fixed gear like the Miles M20.  Just my musings.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 25, 2018, 03:10:43 AM
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-Brv4JTn/0/9dbbb461/O/DHC4_J85_01.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 25, 2018, 05:28:36 AM
Kim: Interesting stuff. So, shortened fuselage and simplified wing curves à la the Spitfire F.21. I like it.

An alternative approach to the wing design would be retaining the eliptical trailing edge but replacing the semi-eliptical leading edge with a straight edge (akin to the Seversky). Alternatively, 'square off' the wings - like the Spiteful but using a conventional airfoil. The Spiteful's 210 sq ft wing area was quite abit smaller than the Spit's 242 sq ft ... but still much bigger than the Bf 109E's 174 sq ft.

Jon: Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about the twin J85 installation proposal. It would have made good use out of those DHC-3 STOL experiments.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on August 25, 2018, 08:56:52 AM
Good idea on the leading edge.  That would be my guess where all the hard work is.  There was a Supermarine design called the Model 333 that started out as a Fairey Firefly competitor.  It had a simplified wing, although designed for wing folding.  It looks somewhat along what I think you envision, although it had a gull wing that for the life of me seemed superflous.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2018, 07:08:30 AM
Kim: My guess on the Type 333's reversed gull was Supermarine obsessing on the mountains of data gleaned from wind tunnel tests on R-R's He 70. The question is: were the added manufacturing headaches worth the aerodynamic benefits?

And now on to another unbuilt project ...

'Swords' into Claymores - the Canadair CL-76

For some time, I've been curious about what the Canadair CL-76 project would have looked like if built.

Canadair had hoped to produce a number of evolved CL-13 Sabre designs. Among these unbuilt projects were the CL-13G 2-seat trainer (akin to North American's TF-86F) and the CL-13J with a simplified Bristol afterburner (as compared with the afterburner originally planned for the CL-13C). Later, with the writing on the wall for further 'Sword' production, Canadair made more radical plans.

The 1958 CL-76 project was intended to produce a 2-seat NATO attack aircraft using the maximum number of F-86 and CL-13 components. There were three variants of the proposed CL-76. The first two kept fairly close to the F-86/CL-13 pattern other than being powered by twin engines, pod-mounted on the rear fuselage.

The baseline CL-76 was to be powered by compact Pratt & Whitney Canada JT12 (US military designation J60) fitted with afterburners. The CL-76A proposal was essentially similar to the CL-76 other than being powered by slightly larger Bristol Siddeley Orpheus BOr.12SR turbojets. These engines (TJ37s in the US designation system) would produce 6,810 lbf dry, with 8,170 lbf reheat.

There was also a CL-76B proposal but it involved much more radical airframe changes - 'internal' engines, high-mounted wings, etc. Obviously, the CL-76B was no longer an exercise in recycling exiting F-86/CL-13 components. Rather, those components were to be modified out of all recognition. However, none of these Canadair proposals was taken up by Canada or any other NATO member.

Here, I've shown what I imagine service CL-76 Claymores would have looked like. She's no looker but, to me at least, it was still an interesting design exercise by Canadair.

(Top) A former RCAF Claymore Mk.1A (2 x J60s) in Yugoslav markings. To prolong airframe life, the Yugoslavs removed their Claymores outer weapon pylons.

The Claymore Mk.1s had no fixed gun armament. This aircraft sports a false radome like all RCAF Claymores (the targetting radar was omitted from Canadian airframes as an economy measure).

(Bottom) A Claymore Mk.3 (2 x TJ37s) near the end of its RAF service. This aircraft lacks both inboard and outboard weapon pylons since it is being employed on Claymore pilot refresher courses.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on August 26, 2018, 07:49:46 AM
You got me, Apophenia.   The "V" seems awful close to the wing root, and only seems to thicken the wing.  I don't see that much advantage at all.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 26, 2018, 07:23:58 PM
That Claymore is great, apophenia!

I bet a view from the top would bring to mind an A-10.

Give it a "ground pounder" load-out and it coulda been a contender!

You have some incredible vision and I always enjoy your work.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on August 27, 2018, 12:25:49 AM
A little bit strange with that big canopy...but that's good  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 27, 2018, 12:15:50 PM
Claymore looks better than some other podded twin-engine Sabre derivatives I've seen, including some schemed by NAA.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 28, 2018, 04:11:57 AM
Thanks folks!

Alex: Yes, the TF-86 made for an odd-looking bird. Somehow its oddness is intensified with Canadair's bulbous nose cap.

Evan: I'd love to see some of those NAA podded Sabre schemes!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 29, 2018, 03:12:11 AM
Only saw a copy of the brochure.  Had two podded turbofans (TFE731's I reckon), a solid nose, and much of the old intake and engine compartment converted to fuel tankage.  It was intended as a two-seat executive transport IIRC.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 02, 2018, 05:37:05 AM
Another entry into The Anachronistic Group Build:  Rumelian Fighters - 1938

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8094.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8094.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 05, 2018, 04:22:27 AM
I have been playing with some Spitfire-related notions springing off from the musings of kim margosein. The first is the Supermarine Type 321 Shrew lightweight fighter. [1]

My Shrew is Peregrine-powered with an airframe based on a shortened Spitfire fuselage and a Spitfire wing simplified with a straight leading edge. Tailplane and undercarriage would be standard Spitfire components.

The Peregrine would save perhaps 500 lbs, another few stone would be shaved off the airframe. So, the Shrew would have been lighter than the standard Spit. But I'm not sure that the work involved in developing the Shrew would have provided a worthwhile stablemate to the Spitfire. On to other simplified Spitfire notions ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on September 05, 2018, 05:17:10 AM
A Peregrine powered Spitfire is truly inspired thinking!

Reminds me of an He-100 built by the good guys.

Great stuff!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 05, 2018, 08:46:15 AM
Looks quite pretty! ;)

What about with a laminar flow, or Whirlwind wing & a Whirlwind style bubble canopy? ???

Made by Westland, so's not to interfere with Spitfire production?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on September 05, 2018, 10:16:41 AM
Awesome!  I really like the direction you went.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 07, 2018, 12:10:30 AM
Kim: Cheers. A few more such ideas coming down the pike.

Vetus Vombatus Cool idea :)  I was heading in a Vickers direction but time can always be made for adding a Whirlwind canopy to anything!

So, here is the 'short' Shrew and 'long' Spitfire with Whirlwind canopy and wing. Haven't quite figured out the armament arrangements on these puppies though  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on September 07, 2018, 02:27:50 AM

it is funny to make that kind of exchanges, and they look nearly natural  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 09, 2018, 03:08:41 AM
Supermarine Type 321HS 'Hun-Shrew' aka Supermarine 'Shrimp'

The Type 321 Shrew was never completed - partly because the Peregrine was unavailable, partly because the RAF wasn't really in the market for a lightweight fighter. However, the Air Ministry was willing to fund the completion of the 'short' Spitfire airframe for experimental purposes.

Through very quiet back channels, the Air Ministry Intelligence Department had succeeded in spiriting the remains of several German Messerschmitt Bf 109 airframes out of Republican Spain. The Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE), at Martlesham Heath in Suffolk, expressed an interest in making comparisons between the latest German airframe techonology and that of British industry. Once as much as could be glean had been, two relatively undamaged Messerschmitt wing panels - one from a Bf 109B-0, one from a Bf 109B-1 - were forwarded to Supermarine.

The Type 321 fuselage was fitted with a Merlin engine and modified to accept the German components - wings and main undercarriage. To restore the aircraft's centre of gravity, the 'Hun-Shrew' was fitted with a belly radiator (taken from a Hawker Hurricane).  The finished airframe was delivered to the A&AEE in late May 1939 and quickly dubbed the 'Hun-Shrew'. It quickly became apparent that the 'Hun-Shrew' was less manoeuvrable than a standard Spitfire Mk.I. This was attributed to the smaller wing area, [1] which resulted in another nickname amongst test pilots - the Supermarine 'Shrimp'.

Having served its primary purpose, the 'Shrimp' became something of an A&AEE hack. However, shortly after the Establishment moved to Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, the Type 321HS (as it had become known) [2] was damaged in a ground loop. With no future role to play, the damaged 'Hun-Shrew' airframe was simply stripped of useable Spitfire parts and scrapped.

______________________________________

[1] The Messerschmitt Bf 109B's wing area measured only 174 sq ft. compared with a Spitfire Mk.I's 242 sq ft.

[2] The 'HS' sub-type designator may have been assigned to confuse German intelligence about the state of Supermarine's investigations into the French HS 12Y and 'Z powerplants.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 09, 2018, 05:54:57 PM
I may have to hunt down a 1/72 bubble-top Spit & A 1/72 Whirlwind to try to piece together a Shrew based on that image. It's kinda cute! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on September 09, 2018, 07:07:30 PM
I may have to hunt down a 1/72 bubble-top Spit & A 1/72 Whirlwind to try to piece together a Shrew based on that image. It's kinda cute! 8)

Too bad you sold a 1/72 Airfix Whirlwind to someone isn't it...……. :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 09, 2018, 11:47:27 PM
I may have to hunt down a 1/72 bubble-top Spit & A 1/72 Whirlwind to try to piece together a Shrew based on that image. It's kinda cute! 8)

Too bad you sold a 1/72 Airfix Whirlwind to someone isn't it...……. :-[

Nah, went to a good home! :smiley:

I'll just have to find another one to rescue from the clutches of some thoughtless JMN rivet-counter! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on September 10, 2018, 12:12:59 AM

it is funny to make that kind of exchanges, and they look nearly natural  ;)

Completely concur!

Inspired thinking going with the Peregrine engine and a Whirlwind canopy on your Shrew, aphophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 11, 2018, 03:29:57 AM
Thanks folks! Old Wombat: I'd love to see the Shrew in styrene  :smiley:

Supermarine Type 330 Scarab and Type 330F Scarabée

The Type 330 Scarab incorporated Vickers-Supermarine's notions for a simplified Spitfire structure. The straight leading-edge wing came directly from the cancelled Shrew. A new tail section was devised, incorporating straight-edged tail fin, rudder, stabilizors, and elevators. It was calculated that these changes would save up to 25 man-hours in construction time compared with the in-production Spitfire Mk.Ia fighter.

Other than its airframe changes, the Type 330 Scarab was essentially similar to the Spitfire. Matching mark designations were used. As such, the Scarab Mk.Ia was akin to the Spitfire Mk.Ia - being fitted with 1,030 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines and 8 x .303 inch Browning guns. The Scarab Mk.II was like the Spitfire Mk.II in having a 1,175 hp Merlin XII.

Supermarine Type 330F Scarabée - What's the French for Dung Beetle?

French authorities had tested a Spitfire Mk.I and shown an interest. Supermarine then proposed a 'Francisized' version of the Scarab - the Hispano-powered Type 330F Scarabée. As planned, the Type 330F was to have a 1,280 hp Hispano-Suiza HS 12Z-89ter engine with 20 mm moteur canone. [1] Other than differences dictated by the engine change, cannon installation, and other French-supplied equipment, the Type 330F was essentially a standard Scarab.

Three Type 330F variants were originally proposed. These were known to Supermarine as the Type 330F-1 (as ordered, with DH propeller), the Type 330F-2 (substituting a Ratier 1606M propeller), and the Type 330F-3 (substituting a Chauvière 378 prop). A fourth type had to be added when the HS 12Z engine was unavailable - this was the interim Type 330F-0 powered by a 1,100 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y-51.

In the end, the French were unable to provide even the HS 12Y-51 engines in any numbers. Only two Type 300 were provided to the Armée de l'Air - one standard RAF Scarab Mk.Ia (F-ASCA) for familiarization, and the sole Type 330F-0 Scarabée (F-ASCB). Neither aircraft seems to have survived the Battle of France.

______________________________________

[1] Standard Type 330F Scarabée armament was to be 1 x 20 mm HS 404 moteur canone plus four 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine guns. All Type 330F sub-types could accommodate six wings but it is unlikely that the hard-pressed French ever mounted any number of wing guns in their two Type 330s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on September 13, 2018, 07:47:52 AM
I really like the temp markings on that export version!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on September 13, 2018, 08:16:12 AM
I really like the temp markings on that export version!
I agree with Sir Brian.  You can see where the French roundel and rudder stripes will go, but there's nothing showing to spoil a civil registration.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 15, 2018, 04:26:50 AM
Supermarine Type 332L Spectre

The RAF's Supermarine Type 332L Spectre fighter came about by accident. The original design was for a naval fighter for the Fleet Air Arm. This - the Supermarine Type 332 aka 332N with the proposed name of SeaSnake - was to be a lighter single-seat companion to Supermarine's proposed Type 333 twin-seat fleet fighter to Air Ministry Specification N.8/39. In the end, the Admiralty chose the Fairey Firefly to meet N.8/39 but ordered a test article from Supermarine for the single-seater.

A wing-damaged Scarab Mk.Ia was chosen for modification as the Admiralty's test airframe. The wing mounting points were moved aft to accept a new, single-spar wing with a 'Davis' airfoil profile. That spar was specifically devised to accommodate heavier-calibre armaments of Vickers design - specifically the Class 'F' .5-inch high-velocity machine guns [1] and the Class 'J' .75-inch autocannon. [2] With the autocannon not yet ready for service use, the initial proposals were either for four wing-mounted  Class 'F' guns or two Class 'F' HVs and four heavy machine guns (Vickers Class 'C'). [3] The Admiralty chose, instead, twin Vickers Class 'F' and four rifle-calibre Browning guns.

Rather than wait for trials, it was decided to place a pre-production order for Type 332s. Unfortunately, problems with the Type 332 test article conversion emerged almost immediately. Tests with carrier-style arrestor gear overstrained the airframe resulted in wrinkling to the rear fuselage. Supermarine suggested external reinforcement plates but, satisfied with its Grumman Martlets and Sea Hurricanes, the Admiralty was having doubts about the Type 332's suitability as a carrier fighter. The question was: What to do with pre-production order for Type 332s?

At this point, Club Run operations were underway to ferry combat aircraft ferry from Gibraltar to Malta. Ten operations had carrier-launched more than 300 RAF Hurricanes towards that embattled island. It was suggested that the RAF take over 'de-navalized' Type 332s for future Club Run operations to help relieve the Siege of Malta. This was quickly agreed and as the Type 332L Spectre fighters were completed, they were crated for delivery to Gibraltar. Re-assembled on 'the Rock', the first Spectre Mk.Is were prepared for the next Club Run - Operation Perpetual.

Between 10–12 November 1941, Operation Perpetual launched 40 Type 332L Spectres towards Malta. The aircraft were flown off HMS Ark Royal and HMS Argus. All aircraft were launched unarmed and with rear fuselage 'overload' fuel tanks installed. Two Spectres were lost enroute, another four were shot up on the ground before they could be armed and refuelled at RAF Hal Far. The survivors entered service with No.249 Squadron, RAF - some detailed to the grass strips at RAF Kalafrana [4] and RAF Ta Kali.

______________________________________

[1] The Vickers Class 'F' was a fixed, aircraft version of the 'HV' anti-aircraft machine gun adopted by the Royal Navy in 1929. Both types fired 12.7 x 120mmSR rounds - much more powerful than either Vickers' Class 'C' .5-inch (12.7 x 81mm) or the Browning .50-calibre gun (12.7 x 99mm). (Note: the RW Vickers Class 'F' was a .303 tested by the RAF. It was similar to the belt-fed Class 'E' but with an interchangeable feed block - for a belt or 97-round Lewis drum.)

[2] The .75-inch (19 mm) Vickers Class 'J' cannon was an larger-calibre development of the failed Class 'G' - a .661-inch heavy AA machine gun. (Note: the RW Vickers Class 'J' was rifle calibre aircraft machine gun - fixed or flexible - for export. There was an unrealized RW plan to enlarge the .661 AA gun to .75-inch calibre.)

[3] Here, Vickers-Armstrong was trying it on. Their Class 'C' had already been rejected by the RAF in favour of Browning guns.

[4] Although technically detailed to RAF Kalafrana, this 'det' was actually flying off the golf course grounds at Marsa.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on September 15, 2018, 05:17:20 AM
Those Spectres are wonderful eye-candy.

For some reason, adding the Vokes filter for a desert version makes it even more believable.

Superb Spectres!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 07, 2018, 05:42:20 AM
I've spun off in another direction from kim margosein's original export Spitfire notion. What follows is just some background - mainly aircraft-weapons and aero-engine related - for where I'm going ...

Vickers-Armstrong - Export Markets, Mergers, Engine-Production, and Aircraft Armaments

In late 1937, Vickers-Armstrong Director Sir Robert MacLean ordered a review of the firm's aircraft-related export potential. Vickers Armstrong profits for 1937 would total £1,965,000. Much of that profit was to be invested in expanded production facilities to satisfy a future British war effort. Company analysts estimated that war with Germany would almost certainly occur by 1941 at the latest. Until then, exports of complete military aircraft and weapons were anticipated to be extremely lucritive. What Sir Robert wanted to know was how best to develop a successful line of export products.

Reviewing its current programs, the Board of Vickers-Armstrong concluded that it was well-placed for supplying the RAF with military aircraft. Its key aviation components were about to be merged within a new Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Ltd. Both the Vickers Wellington medium bomber and Supermarine Spitfire fighter were high-priority types in RAF preparations for the coming war. Where British orders fell short in the Board's view was the Air Ministry's shutting out of Vickers-design automatic weapons. It was hoped that future variants incorporating increased Vickers-Armstrong 'content' could be developed for the thriving prewar export market.

Vickers' dominance of the aircraft automatic weapon market had faltered when the RAF chose the .303-inch Browning as their new standard machine gun. Vickers still had some success in exporting its rifle-calibre Class 'C' machine guns (and, as the Breda 12.7 mm cartridge, its .5-inch round had become the standard Italian fighter aircraft round). To regain a positon of dominance, new Vickers weapon designs must be encouraged and investment was needed in expanding Vickers (Crayford) to handle increased aircraft weapon production.

Within Vickers-Armstrong, aero-engine design and production centred around Armstrong-Siddeley. However, the Armstrong-Siddeley Tiger had been outshone by its Bristol counterparts and by rival US twin-row radials. There were great hopes for Armstrong-Siddeley's upcoming line of 'Dog' engines but their development was slow. Still, Vickers hoped to offer its new Type 284 Warwick heavy bomber for export powered by  new Armstrong-Siddeley Deerhound engines and fitted with AW turrets armed with Vickers Class 'C' heavy machine guns. [1] Potential export variants of the Spitfire fighter would also need powerplants outside of British Air Ministry control ... but Armstrong-Siddeley planned no alternative engine to the Spitfire's Rolls-Royce Merlin. Vickers-Armstrong needed to look further afield.

Finding a Vickers-Armstrong Rival to the Rolls-Royce Merlin

While reviewing potential candidates , an opportunity revealed itself. The venerable French engine-maker, S.E.C.M. 'Lorraine', announced that it was bankrupt and would soon be entering into receivership. [2] Vickers-Armstrong immediately put out feelers, entering into negotiations with Lorraine's receivers in the early Summer of 1938. A deal was struck whereby Vickers-Armstrong would take over development of Lorraine's liquid-cooled V-12 aero-engines - the 28.7L Pétrel 12H and the new 30.5L Sterna 12R. It was quickly decided to focus engineering attention on developing the newer, lighter Sterna design with its 2-speed Szydlowski-Planiol S-38-H2 supercharger.

As a condition of sale, French engineer Albert Lory was seconded to Vickers-Armstrong to further develop the Sterna 12R. At the same time, a Vickers-Armstrong worked to 'Anglicise' the design. The result, first known as the 'Sterna 12V', was redubbed the Vickers Vortex. With higher-octane fuel, the Vortex produced 1,250 hp at 9,000 feet with a dry weight of 1,350 lbs. resulting in 1,225 hp at 3,000 rpm. [3] With more commonly available fuel, the Vortex would deliver 1,000 hp at 8,000 feet. This performance was equivalent to that of Rolls-Royce's Merlin. From the outset, the Vortex was offered in three distinct marks - the direct-drive Vortex I, the single-speed supercharger-equipped Vortex II intended for bomber installations, [4] and the fighter-type Vortex III with its two-speed supercharger.


As a fighter engine, the perceived advantage held by the Vortex III was its ability to accommodate a 'motor cannon' ... and Vickers-Armstrong had just the gun. The Vortex III had been specifically designed to accommodate a new Vickers Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon. [5] Mounted between the cylinder banks of the Vortex III, the Class 'M' gun fired through a hollow propeller shaft. This arrangement obviated the need for heavy gun synchronization gear. It also kept the main armament mounted on the centre line of the fighter - something not feasible with the RAF's chosen Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

The Vickers Victor - A Spitfire With a Difference

Vickers-Armstrong was proposing an export fighter based on a simplified Spitfire airframe. Dubbed the Vickers Victor, this revised Spitfire development would be powered by a Vortex III V-12. Main armament would, of course, be the Vickers Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon firing through the propeller hub. As envisioned, a secondary armament would carried of up to six wing-mounted Vickers Class 'E' rifle calibre machines guns or four wing-mounted Class 'C' guns in the heavier .5-inch calibre. [6] In the works was a new lightweight cannon suitable for wing-mounting. This - the Class 'J' .75-inch aircraft cannon - was a development of Vickers' experimental .661-inch anti-aircraft gun for the Royal Navy. With its enlarged shell, the Class 'J' fell in to the same class as the widely-available 20mm Oerlikon FF cannon. [7]

The Air Ministry was not happy at all with the notion of a Vickers Victor. To officialdom, any export variants of the Spitfire could only disrupt Supermarine deliveries to the RAF. When the Ministry of Aircraft Production was formed and the Spitfire declared a priority type, all hope of developing a Vickers Victor for the export market was dead. However, opportunity can arise in the most unexpected ways ...

____________________________________

[1] Armament options included two .5-inch guns - the Class 'C' (short 12.7x81mm) and 'High Velocity' Class 'F' (Vickers HV, 12.7x120SR) - and the original Class 'J' in .661-inch (16.8x194mm). The prototype Type 284 Warwick would fly in August 1939 with Rolls-Royce Vultures, the second prototype in April 1940 with Bristol Centaurus engines. Plans for a Warwick powered by Armstrong-Siddeley Deerhound or Boarhound engines were never realized.

[2] SECM stood for the Société d'Emboutissage et de Constructions Mécaniques - which included the airframe-maker Amiot as well as Argenteuil-based Lorraine (formerly Lorraine-Dietrich).

[3] This accomplished in part by a slight increase of compression ratio of 7.1:1 (compared with the Sterna 12R's compression ratio of 6.9:1).

[4] The Vortex II was first offered to power an export version of the Wellington. Later a four-Vortex development of the Warwick was mooted as the Vickers Type 284V Warminster long-range bomber.

[5] The Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon descended from the mid-'30s 25.4 mm Class 'H' anti-aircraft cannon developed for the Argentine navy. By comparsion, the Class 'M' had a shorter barrel, replaced the box magazine with a drum type, and introduced light alloys components into the gun body.

[6] The Class 'E' was an export derivative of the Class 'C' in its .303-inch variant. The .5-inch Class 'C' fired a 12.7 x 81mm rimless cartridge (similar to the semi-rimmed round fired by Breda-SAFAT guns).

[7] Class 'J' marketing emphasized the advantage of this '19 mm' gun's powerful 19 x 194mm cartridge over the less potent Oerlikon rounds (eg: 20x80RB for the Luftwaffe's Ikaria-built Oerlikon MG-FF).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 07, 2018, 05:46:05 AM
Vickers-Armstrong Powerplants at Boulton-Paul Aircraft

Although the new Ministry of Aircraft Production would not countenance an export Spitfire program, the Air Ministry was less hostile to the Vickers Vortex aero-engine. In some quarters of the AM and RAF, the Vortex was seen as a welcome backup to the in-demand Rolls-Royce Merlin. Potential applications were a Fairey Battle development powered by a Vortex II (the single-speed supercharger version) and a Hawker Hurricane derivative with a motor-cannon Vortex III (with two-speed supercharger). In the event, wartime urgencies prevented either concept from being further explored.

The Air Ministry had, however, agreed that Boulton-Paul Aircraft could divert one Defiant turret fighter airframe to act as a testbed for the new Vickers Vortex engine. The turretless Defiant N1564 was fitted with the Vickers powerplant and successfully test flown in early December 1939. The engine-related changes were comparatively minor. The Vortex was physically larger than the Defiant's original Merlin powerplant but cylinder-head bulges in the cowling accommodated the new engine.

The test aircraft was equipped with a pre-production Vortex III but no motor-cannon was fitted. Boulton-Paul was already considering a Vortex-powered Defiant derivative armed with .75-inch guns - a motor cannon for the pilot and twin cannons in a revised turret. However, RAF planners did not believe that 2-seater pilots should distracted by fixed armaments and, in any case, official favour for turret fighters was waning. The 'Vortex-Defiant' fighter concept was still-born. Attention at Boulton-Paul turned to adapting their P.91 single-seat fighter concept.

Vickers-Armstrong Powerplants at Boulton-Paul Aircraft

Whereas Boulton-Paul's original P.94 concept was a straightforward single-seat Defiant adaptation to day-fighter, the Vortex prompted a more thorough redesign. The P.94V concept mated Defiant wings and tailplane to a modified fuselage. The rear fuselage was joined to a new centre fuselage section which was both shortened and constructed from steel-tubing. [1]

Boulton-Paul began work on the P.91V as a private venture without any real official approval. By the time that AM officials were aware of the P.94V, they were quite happy to put a stamp of approval on the type. The Defiant was a good aircraft but, conceptually, the turret fighter was fading. Both the AM and the Ministry of Aircraft Production needed Boulton-Pauls production lines producing useful combat aircraft. Switching those lines from risky Defiants to a conventional fighter acting as a back-up to both Hurricane and Spitfire programmes seemed very prudent - especially since the new aircraft would end Boulton-Paul's current draw on Merlin production.

The P.94V received a development contract from the Air Ministry and was assigned the name Paladin. A 'prototype' P.94V Paladin, N1592, was quickly assembled although, in truth, it was more of a proof-of-concept airframe. As many Defiant components as possible were retained. Beyond the shortened fuselage, obvious changes were the single cockpit and enlarged ventral radiator bath (as had been retrofitted to the N1564 testbed). Initially, no armament was fitted - the aircraft having been fitted with standard Defiant wings. Once flight-proven, N1592 was armed with a Vickers Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon.

Firing trials with the Class 'M' gun were encouraging. The 1-inch shells packed a powerful punch and their high-velocity rounds made for intuative aiming for pilots. However, these was an obvious downside. Although the Paladin cockpit was further aft than the Defiant, the Vortex III was a hot-running engine. As a result, the Paladin prototype's cockpit tended to roast. Worse, when the Class 'M' motor-cannon was fired, the cockpit filled with acrid cordite fumes. Production Paladin cockpits, it was decided, would need to be set even further aft.

(To be continued ...)
____________________________________

[1] The original Defiant centre fuselage was a semi-monocoque just like the rear fuselage. The new welded steel-tube section was chosen both for its simplicity and speed of production.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 08, 2018, 08:15:26 AM
I like your Paladin a lot!

I bet you could fools a lot of people with such a credible profile.

Your work is always a treat, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on October 08, 2018, 04:25:32 PM
You are perfectly right Brian!!!
Great job as always !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on October 09, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
Unbelieveable.  I'm going to have to buy some more spitfire kits now.  From what I read here and there on the Type 333 it was something like the Blackburn Firebrand passing through several iterations and versions, though only on paper.  One that I'm intrigued about is a RN request for a fast climbing interceptor to protect naval bases.   Sort of the same idea as the Mitsubishi J2M.  I am thinking along the lines of a Spiteful with a Rolls Royce Crecy engine.  Be interesting to just hear that big honking 2 cycle fire up.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2018, 05:26:11 AM
Thank folks  :D

Boulton-Paul Paladin Fighter - The Vickers Vortex Goes to War

Boulton-Paul Aircraft's P.91V Paladin 'prototype' had been a bit of a lash-up job using the maximum number of unchanged components from the Defiant turret fighter. The production model Boulton-Paul Paladin was mor refined. The pilot's position was moved slightly aft to reduce heat transfer and gun gas build-up in the cockpit. Visibility from the cockpit was actually improved as a result of the Air Ministry's insistence that a standard Spitfire windscreen and sliding hood replace the Defiant-style glazings of the prototype.

Another obvious change was a new, lighter-weight main undercarriage. [1] Derived from Spitfire components, this simplified, inward-retracting landing gear also created space for small, triangular auxiliary fuel tanks in the Paladin wing centre-section. Less obvious was a switch to side-draught carburettors (which 'cleaned up' the nose profile while improving airflow to the ventral radiator bath). Armament for the Paladin Mk.I consisted of the Vickers Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon trialled in N1592 as well as six wing-mounted .303-inch Browning machine guns.

The new Boulton-Paul aircraft was naturally compared with the RAF's in-service fighter types. Despite the increased power from of its Vortex engine, the Paladin was slightly slower than the Merlin-powered Spitfire Mk.IA. In theory, the new fighter was also inferior in range and endurance as well. But, superior range figures for both the Spitfire and Hurricane rely on those fighters flying at very slow speeds (168 mph in the case of the Hurricane Mk.I). By contrast, quoted Paladin range of 555 miles was based on a cruising speed of 275 mph.

Of course, the real difference with the Paladin was its hard-hitting 1-inch main gun. That, and the fighter's endurance led to it being first adopted as a comparatively long-range bomber interceptor. Although manoeuvrable, the weight of the auto-cannon was seen as a disadvantage in fighter versus fighter combat. But that was not to be the experience of No 141 Squadron, RAF when the Paladin Mk.I first entered service in early September 1940 - replacing that unit's Defiants at Prestwick. No 141 was tasked with intercepting Luftflotte 5 aircraft attacking Britain from bases in occupied Norway. In the first successful interception, a Paladin pilot blew the entire tail off of a Heinkel bomber with one shot of his 1-inch gun.

That lucky shot would not be typical but there was no denying that the Class 'M' gun was deadly. The surprise came when No 141 began 'mixing it' with the bombers' Bf 110 escorts. With sufficient preparation time, 'vectored' Paladin pilots found that they could tackle the twin-engined Messerschmitts head-on. A few round of 1-inch cannon fire could be loosed before coming into range of the Germans' MG-FF guns. At that point, the faster and more manoeuvrable Paladins could disengage at will. This tactic was so successful - against escorts and bombers - that many No 141 Paladins flew with reduced wing armaments, pilots choosing to emphasize their heavy cannon instead. [2]

Paladin Mk.III - The Emergence of a True Gun-Fighter

In late October 1940, No 141 Squadron moved south to join the newly re-equipped No 264 Squadron. With the Battle of Britain coming to a close, it was decided to employ the Paladins on cross-Channel raids. Both squadrons used their 1-inch cannons to shoot up German invasion barges and other shipping moored in French Channel ports. Here the heavy guns came into their own ... but the low-flying Paladins were usually escorted by higher-flying Spitfires. The Paladin pilots resented this 'nannying' but escorting Spitfires did eliminate the element of surprise from German interceptions. Once 'bounced', the Paladins could usually fight their way out and head for home.

A proposed all-cannon armament Paladin Mk.II never emerged. Rather, it was the Paladin Mk.III which brought a complete cannon armament to the breed. Wing-mounted machine guns were replaced with a pair of the new Vickers Class 'J' .75-inch auto-cannons. These potent guns fired a powerful 19 x 194mm cartridge, giving their shells the same flat trajectory as the 1-inch motor cannon rounds. The incorporation of some light alloys into the construction of the Class 'J' also meant that this gun installation actually reduced the weight of the Paladin Mk.II as compared with its six machine gun-toting predecessor.

The Paladin Mk.III eclipsed the proposed Mk.II, in part, because it introduced the Vortex V powerplant. It was obvious that the Paladin airframe would benefit from a higher-powered engine. But equally obvious was that the airframe would need more side area. Added to that was that the Vickers engines had proven hot-running - so the higher-powered Vortex V would dictate a larger coolant  radiator. Boulton-Paul solved both issues in a stroke. The ventral radiator bath was enlarged and extended aft - providing both added side area and space for enlarged glycol and oil radiators. [3]

(To be continued ...)
____________________________________

[1] The heavy Defiant undercarriage by Lockheed had been causing problems in any case. Boulton-Paul had been investigating a replacement landing gear by Dowty even before the advent of the Paladin.

[2] As a result of these field modifications, Boulton-Paul proposed a Paladin Mk.IA delivered from the factory with wing armament reduced to four .303-inch machine guns. This proposal was not accepted.

[3] A less noticeable improvement was increased gas venting for the motor cannon to do a better job of keeping the cockpit clear of cordite fumes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2018, 05:27:45 AM
Boulton-Paul Paladin Testbeds

Not all of Boulton-Paul Aircraft's proposed developments of the Paladin airframe suited the interests of Vickers-Armstrong. Perhaps the most alarming example from Vickers' point-of-view was T4106, a late production Paladin Mk.I adapted to take a Rolls-Royce Merlin powerplant. The point of the exercise was providing an opportunity to make direct comparisons between the Vortex-powered original and a Merlin-engined Paladin. Trials by the RAF's Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down would reveal minimal performance gains in installing the slightly lighter Merlin engine.

Although alarming for Vickers' management, the Merlin-powered Paladin demonstrator posed no real threat. There was no danger of an operation development of the Merlin-powered Paladin demonstrator emerging - there was simply no plausible way of providing a sufficient armament without the motor-cannon of the Vickers Vortex.

Other Boulton-Paul testbeds were simply attempts at improving the breed. As an example, an early Paladin Mk.III - T4274 - was temporarily fitted with Boulton-Paul's preferred retractable tail wheel. In this case, some performance gain was realized but - for the moment - the RAF resisted the retracting tail wheel. The official objection remained the same as it had been with the Defiant prototype. The Paladin's hydraulic system would need to be inceased in size and complexity if the tail wheel was made retractable.

Boulton-Paul would follow up with its most radical modification to a Paladin testbed ... but that story must come later.

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 11, 2018, 05:11:36 AM
Adding a Spitfire canopy was a touch of sheer genius!

Looks wicked fast.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 11, 2018, 07:21:22 AM
Cheers Brian!

Boulton-Paul Paladin Mk.V - Go Big or Go Home!

The reputation of Boulton-Paul Aircraft's Paladin fighter rested on its large-calibre armament. When Vickers produced its most powerful aircraft gun - the 40 mm Class 'S' - it proved to be too big to act as direct Class 'M' replacement. In place of the major modifications required to both engine and airframe to accommodate a Class 'S' motor-cannon, Boulton-Paul followed Hawker's lead. The Paladin Mk.V would carry two of the massive 40 mm guns beneath its wings. Otherwise, the Paladin Mk.V was essentially a Paladin Mk.III airframe fitted with a specially modified Paladin Mk.I wing. [1]

To lighten all-up weight, the standard Paladin Class 'M' 1-inch motor-cannon was replaced by a .5-inch Class 'F' machine gun. This gun was selected over the RAF's preferred .303-gun 'spotting gun' because the Vickers 'HV' shell had a similar trajectory to the 40mm anti-tank rounds. Besides the 40mm 'S' guns, no other wing armament was carried. In March 1942, the first Paladin Mk.V 'tank-busters' were assigned to No 601 Squadron to replace that unit's disappointing Caribou/Airacobra aircraft. [2] However, it wasn't No 601 which took 'the flying tin-opener' into combat.

From 'Flying Swords' to 'Oranje' and Brief Acclaim in Battle

The Paladin Mk.Vs never sported No 601's 'UF' squadron codes or its famous 'Flying Sword' markings. By the end of April 1942, No 601 had left Digby enroute to Egypt (via Malta). However, the plan was for No 601 to fly Spitfires from Luqa and then in the Egyptian desert. The squadron's Paladin Mk.Vs were to be passed on to the South African Air Force upon their arrival in-theatre. The Paladins were actually transported to RAF Haifa in Mandatory Palestine where they were re-assembled and repainted by a detachment of South African personnel.

In June 1942, the Paladin Mk.Vs of No.40 Squadron, SAAF, arrived at L.G.221 (RAF Helwan) where they began working up. [3] In late July, the South Africans moved up to L.G.85 (Al Mahdeyah Markaz, south of Alexandria) and immediately began engaging ground targets. Almost all the combat flying was done 'on the deck' and losses began to mount. The Paladin Mk.V proved ill-equipped to cope with desert flying. Always prone to running hot, the Vortex V powerplants now had also to contend with inadequate air filters and the grinding effects of kicked-up desert sand.

No.40 Squadron's move to L.G.148 (Sidi Azeiz) across the Libyan border worsened matters when captured fuel stocks proved to be contaminated. Serviceability plummeted and ad hoc sand filters impaired flying performance. The Vokes filters used by desert Hurricanes and Spitfires could not be adapted to the side-draught carberettors of the Paladin. Fortunately, inspiration came from the captured remains of a Macchi C.202. Could Boulton-Paul adapt that Italian fighter's filter in scaled-down form for both sides of the Paladin?

(Top) 'Wildman', a Paladin Mk.V, No.40 Squadron, SAAF, Libya, 1942. This relatively new aircraft is already showing the strains of desert operations. N2205 woud soon be lost to ground fire along with its pilot, F/Lt Jack Orpen. [4]

Paladin Mk.VI - Desert Fighter

The air filter mods resulted in a dedicated desert fighter - the Paladin Mk.VI. This aircraft incorporated all the lessons learned - including a slightly larger glycol radiator and improved desert survival gear stowage. Most importantly, the armament installation now consisted of three .75-inch Class 'J' auto-cannons - one in each wing (a la the Paladin Mk.III, the third 'J' replaced the 1-inch Class 'M' motor-cannon. The object of the armament change was to simplify ammunition supply.

Simplifying ammunition supply was especially important at the more remote desert Landing Grounds. That armament change also served to lighten the aircraft, making the Paladin Mk.VI the liveliest-handling of the Paladin family. The Paladin Mk.VI also finally introduced Boulton-Paul's much-sought-after retractable tail wheel.

Never produced in great numbers, the Paladin Mk.VI entered service in late April 1943 with No.40 SAAF at Souk-el-Khemis. By this stage, the Tunisian campaign was drawing to a close. With the end of the North African campaign, No. 40 Squadron relocated to Sicily acting primarily in a fighter-reconnaissance role. By the time that the squadron moved on to the Italian mainland the role had shifted again. Fitted with wing racks, the unit's Paladin Mk.VIs were operated as fighter-bombers.

(Bottom) Sicily 1943. A Paladin Mk.VI in full No.40 Squadron, SAAF markings (note that South African aircraft in this theatre had the red of their fuselage roundels and tail flashes replaced by orange).

(To be continued ...)

____________________________________

[1] The RAF order for Paladin Mk.Vs over-wrote an earlier Mk.I order (with assigned Mk.I serials being transferred to the Mk.Vs).

[2] Brief consideration was given to mounting the Vickers Class 'S' gun in the mid-engined Bell Caribou - originally designed to carry a US 37 mm gun. No 601 Squadron encountered enough problems with their Bell fighters to put paid to the 40 mm Caribou concept.

[3] Somewhat ironically, the Paladin Mk.Vs' former 'owners' - No 601 Squadron, RAF - replaced No.20 at Helwan in August 1942.

 4] Lieutenant John Joseph Overton Orpen was also the squadron artist
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2018, 06:37:43 AM
Boulton-Paul Paladin Evolution and Testbed

Boulton-Paul Aircraft adopted the Paladin Mk.V ground-attack fighter with twin 40 mm Class 'S' guns as an expedient. To the airframe designers' the Mk.V was over-specialized. Better, it was felt, that the heavy 40 mm gun replace the single Class 'M' gun on the aircraft's centre-line. To that end, a revised Paladin airframe was drawn up. This airframe would accommodate that big centre-line gun while being able to retain the Paladin Mk.III wing armament of two .75-inch autocannons.

To accomplish this, the BP design team gave their 'Paladin S' - as it was dubbed - a slight fuselage stretch and an entirely new wing. The stretch provided sufficient space for the massive Vickers Class 'S' breech. The new wing was the same span as the standard Paladin but deeper in chord. This provided space for larger auxiliary fuel tanks and, BP designers were confident, sufficient room for any size of new aircraft guns then being contemplated. The 'Paladin S' also incorporated a more rakish windscreen with thicker armour-glass [1] and extended rear glazing to provide the 'all-round' vision essential for low-altitude operations.

The Air Ministry exhibited mild interest in the potential of the 'Paladin S' but it was based upon a hypothetical Vortex engine development. Unfortunately for Boulton-Paul, Vickers-Armstrong's plans for their Vortex V-12 powerplant were moving in a different direction. The upside was Air Ministry interest in a technology demonstrator very much like the 'Paladin S'.

'Paladin-Mustang' - The 'Rider' Gets a 'Horse'?

The Air Ministry was interested in being able to compare the performance of 'laminar-flow' wings against a known quantity. To this end, it was proposed that the wings from a North American Mustang Mk.I be mounted on a Paladin. The Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down was then running a series of experiments on Mustang Mk.Is and could provide Boulton-Paul with a wing set from a damaged aircraft. [2] Boulton-Paul would also be expected to provide a standard Paladin Mk.III for comparison purposes.

Since the Paladin was built around a welded steel-tube fuselage centre section, adapting the airframe to a new wing was comparatively simple. However, as had been proposed for a different reason with the 'Paladin S', that fuselage would need to be stretched to take the broader-chord wing from the Mustang Mk.I. The completed 'Paladin LF' (for 'Laminar Flow') conversion was delivered in the early Autumn of 1943 to Boscombe Down for inspection by personnel from the A&AEE and the RAE. Trials were very encouraging and Boulton-Paul was asked to develop an operational equivalent to the 'Paladin LF' as quickly as possible.

(To be continued ...)
____________________________________

[1] Since the capture of an intact Fw 190A, it had become de rigure to incorporate design elements from that  Focke-Wulf fighter into proposals for the RAF. The 'Paladin S' windscreen fell very much into that category.

[2] Mustang Mk.I AL975 had been assigned to Rolls-Royce for trial Merlin installations. While at Hucknall, this 'Mustang X' conversion suffered a major engine fire due to broken oil lines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 15, 2018, 07:08:03 AM
You seem to always take it up a notch with each update, apophenia!

I really like the Paladin with the clear rear canopy. Somehow that just brings it all together for me.

It certainly has that British flavor to it! Most excellent!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 18, 2018, 03:42:45 AM
Thanks Brian!

Vickers' V-12 Evolves - The Vortex XII with 2-Stage Supercharger

Boulton-Pauls' 'Paladin S' concept was based upon a Vickers motor-cannon engine which never appeared. Vickers had considered a Vortex X with a modest 2-stage supercharger and engine-mounted cannon. But that cannon was to be a long-barrelled .75-inch weapon - not the 25.4-inch gun that Boulton-Paul wanted to arm its 'Paladin S'. In the end, Vickers design staff moved in a different direction.

The Vortex XII was a more radical departure from earlier Vickers V-12s. [1] The Vortex XII dispensed with the motor-cannon altogether in favour of an enlarged 2-stage, 2-speed supercharger. The space previously occupied by the cannon breech was now filled with an intercooler for that supercharger. The Vortex XII was also 'stroked', [2] producing a 2,078 cubic inch (34.06 L) displacement. With its supercharger optimized for medium-altitude, the Vortex XII would produce 1,650 hp at 15,000 feet. This was the engine that would equip the next Boulton-Paul fighter.

Boulton-Paul Fighters - From Paladin to Boarhound

Boulton-Paul Aircraft's productionized 'Paladin S' differed enough from the demonstrator - and from the Paladin V - to warrant a new name. The Air Ministry chose Boulton-Paul Boarhound as that new name. The new fighter was certainly bigger than its progenitors and perhaps it was that which inspired the Boarhound naming. There was no Boarhound 'prototype' per se - the first aircraft was also the first production Boarhound F.Mk.I. Noticeable changes from the 'Paladin S' conversion were the Boarhound's raised upper fuselage line, an all-round vision 'bubble' canopy, enlarged tailplane, revised coolant radiator bath, and quartet of wing-mounted Vickers Class 'J' .75-inch auto-cannons.

Top First production Boarhound F.Mk.I nearing completion at BP's Wolverhampton experimental shed.

In the event, only three Boarhound F.Mk.I fighters were ever completed. The Boarhound F.Mk.IA was very similar but intended to fulfilled a new role. Rather than a standard day fighter role, the Boarhound F.Mk.IA was tailored to interception at lower altitudes. Its Vortex XIIA's supercharger had cropped impellers to improve the fighter's low-level performance. The Boarhound F.Mk.IA stock-in-trade was to be catching Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers during their 'tip-and-run' raids over southern England.

Boarhound F.Mk.IA all-up weight was kept to a minimum - the F.Mk.I's fuselage overload fuel tank was omitted and ammunition was reduced by 20 rounds per gun. The carburettor intake duct was fitted with a shorter, 'temperate' air filter and all ancillary equipment superfluous to intercepting German 'tip-and-run' raiders was deleted.

Bottom Boarhound F.Mk.IA of No.141 Squadron, RAF. This is an early-production Mk.IA distinguished by its longer-barrelled Vickers Class 'J' Mk.II cannons.

____________________________

[1] The Vortex XI was a still-born project attempted to introduce a larger 2-stage supercharger while retaining a .75-inch motor-cannon capability.

[2] The earlier Vortex retained the Lorraine Sterna's 148 mm (5.83 inch) 'square' bore and stroke. The Vortex XII still had a 5.83-inch bore but stroke was increased to 6.5-inches (165 mm).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 18, 2018, 08:50:13 PM
You're on roll now!

That Boarhound is so convincing it's bound to fool more than a few armchair aircraft historians.

Lovely works of art all.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 02, 2018, 06:30:18 AM
'Griffon-Boarhound - The Boulton-Paul Boarhound F.Mk.X

The Vortex XII with its 2-stage supercharger had been given the Air Ministry's official approval. However, in a revised policy, the Ministry decided to reduce the number of aero-engine types being produced. Henceforth, in place of complete Vortex XIIs, Vickers was to produce components for the larger Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12. That left Boulton-Paul without a Vickers powerplant for its production Boarhound fighters. Fortunately, Boulton-Paul had already considered a possible future Boarhound variant powered by the Griffon engine - the Boarhound F.Mk.X.

Converting the Boarhound to take the larger Rolls-Royce engine required some airframe modifications. Most notable was the much enlarged tail to provide more compensatory side area for the lengthened nose and big, 5-bladed propeller. Boulton-Paul took the opportunity to provide the Boarhound F.Mk.X with a completely new empennage while simultaneously replacing the tailwheel with a forward-retracting tailwheel. [1] The radiator bath also underwent a further enlargement to deal with Griffon coolant requirements. [2]

(Top) Boarhound F.Mk.IA DR963 undergoing conversion to F.Mk.X standard. Note enlarged tailplane and deepened radiator bath.

For reasons known only to the contemporary RAF brass, all Boarhound F.Mk.X fighters were assigned to Polish squadrons - replacing the Spitfire Vbs with No. 303, No.306, and No.308 Squadrons or Hurricane IIc fighters with No.309 Squadron. [3] All three Polish squadrons took part in the D-Day landings. No.303 flew beachhead and shipping patrols. No.306's Boarhounds were fitted with bomb-racks as fighter bombers. No.309 - an Army-Cooperation squadron - flew mainly armed reconnaissance with the occassional Intruder mission during the landings. But these mission profiles changed quickly.

(Bottom) No.309 Squadron Boarhound F.Mk.X DR994 in newly-applied D-Day markings. The fuselage stripes meet the spit-and-polish standards of the Polish military but 'Chiefy' may have had words for the erks who daubed on those wonky wing stripes.

After the Allied armies broke out from Normandy, No.303 flew mainly Ramrod escorts for US bombers until shifting to Ranger missions over Holland. No.306 took substantial losses while operating as fighter-bombers. The squadron rested and regrouped before being riverted to 'anti-diver' patrols over southern England. No.309 flew some Ramrod missions - mainly with RAF Lancasters - before their Boarhounds were also redirected to 'anti-diver' patrols against German V1 missiles. By Spring of 1945, both No.303 and No.309 were flying longer-range escort missions into Germany. No.306 withdrew from operations to prepare for transfer to Burma.

No.306 Squadron was to form the core of 133 (Polish) Wing, taking their Boarhound F.Mk.X into the Pacific Theatre. In the event, the Japanese Empire surrendered before the Polish contingent was ready to embark for the Orient. All three Polish squadrons flying the Boarhound F.Mk.X disbanded in December 1946 or January 1947. All RAF Boarhounds were then declared 'surplus to requirements' and sold for scrapping.

________________________________

[1] This addressed a safety issue. With the Boarhound F.Mk.I, hydraulic failure meant that the tailwheel could not be properly extended. With the revised Boarhound F.Mk.X arrangement, the tailwheel would simply fall into the extended position under its own weight - regardless of the loss of hydraulic pressure.

[2] To smooth airflow along the bottom of the engine cowling, the Griffon's carburettor intake also fed from the belly intake.

[3] No.301 and No.302 had already converted to Spitfire F.Mk.IXe fighters and would retain these aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 02, 2018, 06:32:59 AM
I stumbled across a sideview profile of the unbuilt Handley Page H.P.55 heavy bomber - a 1936 design powered by two Bristol Hercules I-SM radials. The outline surprised me - nothing like the 'tadpole' H.P.52 Hampden or mid-winged H.P.57 Halifax. Instead, the overall effect of the H.P.55 was - to me - very Armstrong-Whitworth-esque.

Here, I'm springing off from that singularly unattractive H.P.55 profile. I am imagining that H.P.55 being simply re-engined with liquid-cooled Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 engines. As such, this H.P.55A would be one of two Handley Page submissions for Air Ministry Specification P13/36 (the other being the larger the H.P.56).

The H.P.56 was accepted for AM Spec P13/36 but, by this stage, the Air Ministry is having doubts about the future effectiveness of the "turretless" H.P.52 Hampden and the planned Dagger-powered Hereford medium day bombers. According, contracts for the Hereford were switched to the more powerful, better-armed H.P.55A. Handley Page also submitted a backup in the form of the H.P.55B - effectively a Hercules-powered H.P.55A.

Handley Page H.P.55A Hampstead Medium Bomber

A prototype H.P.55A - given the name Hampstead, was delivered to the RAF's A&AEE at Boscombe Down in September 1938. Trials quickly revealed the potential vulnerability of the Hampstead operated as a day bomber. Handley Page had anticipated this and were preparing an H.P.55C design - the Hampstead Mk.IA - fitted with powered turrets in the nose and ventral positions. That concept was not explored further as RAF planners were shifting their emphasis to mass night bombing. When the first Mk.I were delivered to the RAF in late 1938, the were finishing in a full night bomber scheme.

Only a handful of Hampstead Mk.Is were completed before equipment changes dictated a designation change to Mk.II. Externally, these machines were identical to their predecessors other than the provision for a ventral 'scare' gun (in place of the Mk.IA's fully-powered turret - now seen as unnecessary for a night bomber). Eventually, Bristol provided 'blister' gun packages were installed in all Mk.IIs to protect the bomber's belly. These ventral guns were operated by the Flight Engineer. Late production Hampstead Mk.IIs also introduced revised, simpler-to-produce tail fins.

(Top) Handley Page H.P.55A Hampstead Mk.II of No.10 Squadron, RAF, in late 1941.

Although the Rolls-Royce Vulture was a powerful engine, difficulties with these temperamental X-24s limited the usefulness of the Hampstead Mk.II. Although the H.P.55B proposal had initially received a cool reception from the Air Ministry, Handley Page resurrecitated the H.P.55B design and submitted it to the new Ministry of Aircraft Production. The concept was accepted By MAP (in part because it allowed the Ministry to redirect all available Vulture powerplants to the preferred Avro Manchester programme) and Handley Page was directed to swing over to production of Hercules-powered Hampstead Mk.IV bombers as soon as practical. [1]

The bulky nacelles of the Hampstead Mk.II made the switch to radial engines quite straightforward. Other than its new powerplants, the H.P.55B Hampstead Mk.IV was all but indistinguishable from its predecessor (although the Frazer-Nash FN-50 centre gun turret was seen as an improvement). With a considerable loss of power in its twin 1,300 hp Hercules II-SM radials, the Mk.IV suffered in performance but gained reliability. The H.P.55C Hampstead Mk.V got 1,400 hp Hercules IIIs along with introducing a major weight-loss programme to improve take-off performance.

The Hampstead series caught its stride with the H.P.55D Mk.V model. The Hampstead B.Mk.V had 1,500 hp Hercules XIs engines and introduced a new, streamlined nose cone. The Mk.V retained the FN-50 mid-upper turret of the Mk.IV as well as the Boulton-Paul Type E tail turret introduced on late-production Hampstead Mk.IVs.

(Below) A 'Pathfinder' Hampstead Mk.VII of No.35 Squadron, just prior to the phase-out of RAF Hampsteads in early 1943.

_____________________________________

[1] The Hampstead Mk.III was an unbuilt project powered by Rolls-Royce Vulture engines. The Mk.III would have reduced weight due to fewer wing bomb cells but this approach was not acceptable to Bomber Command.
_
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 02, 2018, 07:24:58 AM
I like your Hampsteads very much and they certainly look every bit plausible!

The first one captures that 1930's Bomber Command aesthetic perfectly and the modernized version is, dare I say it, dead sexy!

Fantastic work!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 03, 2018, 02:42:30 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 03, 2018, 02:55:48 AM
The first one captures that 1930's Bomber Command aesthetic perfectly and the modernized version is, dare I say it, dead sexy!

I second that motion.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 03, 2018, 05:22:10 AM
Thanks folks. More to come from Handley Page ... although more free-standing notions than any kind of sequence.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: simmie on November 03, 2018, 07:10:47 AM
If you were to follow the usual routine, when Bomber Command were finished with a type then is was passe on to Coastal Command and/or Transport Command.  Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 04, 2018, 12:15:22 AM
(http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20352.0;attach=14612;image)

The H.P.56 for those wondering about the 55's little brother.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 04, 2018, 03:19:38 AM
H.P.55

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-MMssw2j/0/d8f49556/O/HP55_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 06, 2018, 04:52:35 AM
If you were to follow the usual routine, when Bomber Command were finished with a type then is was passe on to Coastal Command and/or Transport Command.  Just a suggestion.

Wait for it ...  ;D

H.P.55

Thanks Jon ... by far, the best 3-view drawing of the H.P.55 I've seen  :smiley:

_________________________________________

This is a separate concept for Handley Page's submission to Air Ministry Specification P13/36. In this alternative, Handley Page chose instead to further develop the H.P.54 Harrow airframe as the basis for its backup submission to AM Spec P13/36 ...

The H.P.54 Harrow airframe was very heavily revised. The wings were extended to 100 feet of span. The outer panels remained structurally the same as for the Harrow but with increased dihedral. A new, dihedral-less centre section provided the added span. At the extremities of this centre section were new nacelles for a retractable undercarriage and powerful new engines.

The Harrow Mk.II's twin 925 hp Bristol Pegasus XX single-row engines were replaced by twin-row Bristol Hercules I-SM radials. Despite the heavier engines and its retractable undercarriage, this design would have a lower all-up weight. As such, Handley Page designers argued, the officially-requested Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 engines were no longer required to meet demanded performance perimeters. The HP design office at Radlett also draughted a longer-span variant powered by four Pegasus radials but this option did not find favour with the Air Ministry.

The Harrow-based H.P.55 was accepted at the Hanley (HP's recommended name of Hendon having been declined. In November 1938, the Hanley Mk.I entered service with No.214 Squadron, RAF. These aircraft were powered by Bristol Hercules II-SM engines. The new night bomber retained some components from the Harrow Mk.II but, in truth, commonality was minimal. Still, the Air Ministry regarded the H.P.55 Hanley Mk.I as a low-risk design. There was room for improvement, however, with defensive armaments seen as especially weak.

(Top) September 1939. A Hanley Mk.I (P1800) of No.214 Squadron, RAF, in the process of receiving wartime markings. Retaining its original individual aircraft code letter, the squadron number has been overpainted. 'J' has yet to received its new squadron code letters and tail flashes (although the rudder serial numbers have been painted out).

Shortly after the outbreak of WWII, the Hanley Mk.I fleet were retro-fitted with ventral gun cupolas for belly defence. Otherwise, these aircraft were armed with the same manually-operated turrets as the HP.54 Harrow transport-bombers. However, plans were underway to introduce hydraulically-powered gun turrets on the Hanley production line. These took the form of a Fraser-Nash FN-20 four-gun tail turret and a FN-50 two-gun centre gun turret. For the Hanley Mk.II, the belly cupola was retained but the manual nose gun position was revised - primarily to give the bombardier more working space.

The Hanley Mk.III was to have been a Rolls-Royce Vulture-powered derivative insisted upon by the Air Ministry. Ultimately, this model was over-ruled by the Ministry of Aircraft Production (which allowed Vulture production to go to the Avro Manchester programme. The next production model was the Hanley Mk.IV which was powered by 1,400 hp Bristol Hercules III engines. Although intended as a night bomber, added operational equipment resulted in the Hanley Mk.IV being underpowered and something of a disappointment to Bomber Command. The decision was made to focus on Vickers Wellington mediums and Manchester heavy bombers. No.214 Squadron switched to Wellingtons and its Hanley B.Mk.IVs joined the earlier-model Hanleys which had alrady been passed along to Coastal Command.

(Below) A Hanley GR.IVA (JP328) assigned to 58 Sqn, Coastal Command. This aircraft has Coastal Command codes but, otherwise, still retains its original Bomber Command camouflage. (Inset) The dorsal FN-50 show with its fairing in the raised position.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 06, 2018, 04:54:52 AM
The next Handley Page installment is Real World ... sort of. An illustration of a twin-engined medium bomber (inset) was featured in the 14 May 1936 edition of Flight magazine. According to the caption, the image had originally appeared in a corporate journal, The Handley Page Bulletin. [1]

The design depicted is probably just the imaginings of a marketing department artist. However, this artist's concept does have a decidedly Handley Page feel about it - especially in the wings. And its stylish nose cap anticipates changed coming for the H.P. 51 Hampden prototype. Indeed, although few specific features overlap, the concept does evoke the production Hampden in a very general way.

That said, other features - like the single tail fin and rudder - aren't really Handley Page-like at all. Still, I find this artist's concept oddly appealling. So, here is that notional 1936 medium bomber as a wartime aircraft I suspect that this aircraft might have been a bit underpowered, so I've depicted it in a night bomber finish (in the markings of No.83 Squadron, RAF).

I've added a few operational details - exhaust muffs, antennae, etc. - as well as fixing the retractable tailwheel in the 'down' position (which seemed to happen with most RAF types of the day).
______________________________________

[1] Flight noted the design being "somewhat similar to the H.P.53 type" - the planned Swedish version of the RAF's H.P. 51 Hampden. Flight also noted what seemed to be "liquid-cooled Rolls-Royce engines."
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on November 06, 2018, 05:48:24 AM
I like it. Would like right at home beside a B-18 Bolo.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 06, 2018, 07:06:52 AM
I like it. Would like right at home beside a B-18 Bolo.

Absolutely spot-on sir!

You have laser-like insights Mr Gimper.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 07, 2018, 01:17:52 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 07, 2018, 04:31:26 AM
Thanks folks! Regularly-scheduled Handley Page broadcasts will resume shortly. I've been briefly distracted by the Reggiane Re.2004  - originally being an Re.2005 derivative powered by an engine designed by the Officine Meccaniche Italiane "Reggiane".

An Re.2004 prototype did eventually fly - as an Re.2005 airframe fitted with an Isotta-Fraschini Zeta air-cooled X-24 engine. See Retired In Kalifornia's Re.2004 build: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8198.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8198.0)

My take shows the initial Reggiane Re.2004 concept powered by OMI Reggiane's own engine - the Reggiane Re.103 RC50 I. OMI Reggiane referred to this powerplant as an 18 Cilindra M - ie: an 18-cylinder engine with an 'M' layout (or, as usually described in English, an inverted 'W' layout).

(Top) The prototype Reggiane Re.2004 nearly completion. Here, the Reggiane Re.103 engine has been installed in a converted Re.2005 Sagittario airframe (M.M.526).

The Reggiane Re.103 RC.50 I was approximately the same size as the Re.2005's Tifone engine - a license-built German DB 605A. The OMI Reggiane engine was almost 6-inches wider due to its third cylinder row. It was also slightly longer than the Tifone. But, perhaps most importantly, the Italian 'M-18' weighed more than 200 pounds more than its German IV-12 equivalent.

(Bottom) A production Reggiane Re.2004bis fighter in RSI markings.

Compared with the prototype Re.2004 conversion, the Re.2004bis airframe has a lengthened fuselage - needed to restore the fighter's centre of gravity. [1] The 'stretch' occuring at the c/g enlarged the fuselage weapons bay, allowing twin Mauser MG151/20 cannons to mounted in place of the Re.2005's pair of synchronized 12.7 mm Breda machine guns. So, total fixed armament for the Re.2004bis was four 20mm Mausers - the two synchronized guns and another pair of wing-mounted cannons firing outside the propeller arc.

BTW: My Reggiane Re.2004s are based on two Re.2005 sideviews by Angelo Brioschi. [2]

____________________________

[1] This fuselage 'stretch' was less extreme than that for the Reggiane Re.2006 - powered by a Daimler-Benz DB 603A. That larger German engine weighed a further 160 pounds over the Italian Re.103 powerplant.

[2] Brioschi shows the prototype Re.2005 in overall silver (other than its pre-finished fabric surfaces). I've left it that way but, more probably, that prototype was finished in Italian primer - that slightly bileous yellow depicted to perfection by Retired In Kalifornia.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 07, 2018, 05:13:30 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 07, 2018, 12:17:33 PM
That's beautiful and so very, very tempting to attempt.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 07, 2018, 12:56:07 PM
H.P. 53, the Swedish Bomber:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-NfpqWVG/0/ffddfb25/O/HP53_01.jpg)

Proposal to Spec. M.15/35, basically H.P. 52 wings and tail grafted onto a new wider fuselage:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-V59t7sQ/0/ce1c00f4/O/HP_M15-35_01.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 07, 2018, 01:09:03 PM
Some numbers for those interested.

H.P. 55 (two Hercules 1SM or two Merlin XX)
Span: 95'
Length: 65' 3"

H.P. 56 (two Vulture X)
Span: 88'
Length: 66' 6"

Note that the H.P. 55 has almost exactly the same span and similar wing planform as
the DC-3, it's in effect a Harrow based fuselage with a very Douglas like wing.


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 09, 2018, 05:22:59 AM
Ooo ... great stuff Jon! I'm sensing some more deviations coming in my intended Handley Page path  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 10, 2018, 12:19:41 PM
The next Handley Page installment is Real World ... sort of. An illustration of a twin-engined medium bomber (inset) was featured in the 14 May 1936 edition of Flight magazine. According to the caption, the image had originally appeared in a corporate journal, The Handley Page Bulletin. [1]

The design depicted is probably just the imaginings of a marketing department artist. However, this artist's concept does have a decidedly Handley Page feel about it - especially in the wings. And its stylish nose cap anticipates changed coming for the H.P. 51 Hampden prototype. Indeed, although few specific features overlap, the concept does evoke the production Hampden in a very general way.

That said, other features - like the single tail fin and rudder - aren't really Handley Page-like at all. Still, I find this artist's concept oddly appealling. So, here is that notional 1936 medium bomber as a wartime aircraft I suspect that this aircraft might have been a bit underpowered, so I've depicted it in a night bomber finish (in the markings of No.83 Squadron, RAF).

I've added a few operational details - exhaust muffs, antennae, etc. - as well as fixing the retractable tailwheel in the 'down' position (which seemed to happen with most RAF types of the day).
______________________________________

[1] Flight noted the design being "somewhat similar to the H.P.53 type" - the planned Swedish version of the RAF's H.P. 51 Hampden. Flight also noted what seemed to be "liquid-cooled Rolls-Royce engines."


The tail is similar to that of the H.P. 47:

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/hp47.html (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/hp47.html)

(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/other1/hp47/hp47-1.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2018, 07:41:12 AM
The tail is similar to that of the H.P. 47 ...

Excellent Jon ... that answers where that vertical tail came from  :smiley:

Any idea if any illustration exists of the unarmed bomber that Volkert sketched out as a comparison for P.13/36?

Attached are two images for Swedish H.P.53s. Alas, I forgot to bring their backstories to the computer lab. So, mañana ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 15, 2018, 08:49:39 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 15, 2018, 08:58:15 AM
I really like how you added so much Swedish character to these birds. Goes above and beyond simply a marking change.

Most excellent, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on November 15, 2018, 08:59:23 PM

nive floatplanization !

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 16, 2018, 03:51:32 AM
Nice work.

Some further inspiration may be found here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1339.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2018, 07:36:05 AM
Thanks folks  :D  Greg: I forgotten that you'd already done a Hampden with a "big honking gun"! However, your "some sort of fighter' transmogrification was definitely an inspiration
------------------------

As promised for the Swedish Hampdens ( http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg146971#msg146971 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg146971#msg146971) ), Part 1 ...

Handley Page H.P.53A - the 'Swedish Hampden'

In 1937, Sweden expressed interest in the Handley Page H.P.53 - a coastal patrol bomber variant of the H.P.52 Hampden which could be configured as a landplane or as twin-float seaplane. Power was to be twin 1,010 hp Bristol Pegasus XXIV radials. It was envisioned that 70 H.P.53 would be built in Sweden for use by the Flygvapnet. The airframes would be assembled by CVM - the government-owned air force workshops - with assistance from the
privately-owned Götaverken Flygavdelning. Engines for the H.P.53 were to be built under licence by Nohab Flygmotorfabriker AB at Trollhättan.

Initially, the H.P.53 was to be armed with the standard Swedish air-dropped torpedo - the Norwegian-designed Torped m/38 - carried semi-externally. This was a 45 cm torpedo weighing 737 kg and almost 5 metres in length. However, this requirement was eclipsed by a smaller, Bofors-designed 40 cm aerial torpedo which could be carried within the H.P.53's enclosed bomb bay. [1] This ability also prompted the Flygvapnet technical team to recommend that the float struts could be reduced in height to lower drag. [2]

Handley Page completed the prototype H.P.53 as a landplane in late 1938. This aircraft was delivered to Flygflottilj 2 (F 2) at Hägernäs in early January 1939. The H.P.53 was then tranferred to nearby Torslanda for conversion to floats. The completed floatplane - now designated P 5 but still wearing Swedish civil registration SE-APD - was ready for flight trials in April 1939. This aircraft was powered by 1,010 hp Pegasus XXII engines but was otherwise to full production standards. The prototype H.P.53/P 5 was written off in a landing accident at Torslanda in late May 1939 - a portent of things to come for the 'Swedish Hampden'.

(Top) Handley Page-built prototype H.P.53 or P 5 (Provflygplan), Torslanda, May 1939

Under pressure to supply Hampdens to the RAF, Handley Page found itself unable to provide CVM with sufficient compenents or even drawings to get Swedish H.P.53 production underway. In early 1939, a potential solution presented itself. Handley Page's production line at Radlett was winding down as the RAF lost interest in the Hereford bomber - the Dagger-powered Hampden derivative. [3] Some Herefords were re-engined as Hampdens for the RAF but the final 40 production examples were offered to Sweden in semi-completed component-knock-down form as an alternative to building the H.P.53s. This was accepted by the Flygvapnet and the first airframe sets arrived aboard Swedish-flagged vessels in the summer of 1940.

CVM created alternative nacelles to convert the Hereford airframes to Hampden standard. Engine supply was more difficult. Nohab was meant to have re-started its Pegasus production line but had been overwhelmed by the process of reverse-engineering Pratt & Whitney's Twin Wasp. [4] Britain was unable to supply engines but a solution came from an unlikely source. The Swedish Air Attache in Rome reported that Italy was both able and willing to supply Pegasus engines to the Flygvapnet. As a result, Swedish-assembled Hampdens would be powered by Alfa Romeo 128 R.C.21 radials. These were lower-powered engines - producing only 950 hk at 2,100 m - but at least they were available.

(Bottom) British airframes, Swedish Components, Italian Engines - the CVM H.P.53A (Flygvapnet T 5)

Bombflygplan and Torpedfällningsflygplan - the CVM H.P.53A into Service

The resulting CVM H.P.53A entered service with F 2 in November 1940. A handful of the type served as landplanes from Hägernäs - where it was designated by the Flygvapnet as the B 11 reconnaissance bomber. However, the majority of H.P.53As were on floats at Torslanda as the Flygvapnet's T 5 (for Torpedflygplan). A detachment of T 5s also served alongside T 2s (Heinkel He 115s) from a slip at Fårösund.

Meanwhile, further ship-sets of ex-Hereford components were arriving at Göteborg for assembly by the Götaverken Flygavdelning. However, not all was as it appeared ...

[To be continued ...]

______________________________________

[1] Bofors based its design upon the French Type 1926 DA aerial torpedo. The Bofors Torped m/40 retained the French torpedo's 40 cm (15.75-inch) diameter but shortened its length from 5.14 m to just over 4 metres. As a result, the Torped m/40 weighed only 540 kg (compared to 670 kg for the Type 1926 DA and 850 kg for the m/38). The reduced warhead size and range (due to smaller compressed air reservoirs) was judged acceptable for operations in the Baltic Sea.

[2] A downside which would later be revealed was for the H.P.53A tailplane being routinely immersed upon landing.

[3] It also helped that the first English Electric-built Hampdens were then coming off the line at Preston.

[4] Nohab had earlier produced the lower-powered Pegasus VIIA for the S 7A biplane. The Swedish Twin Wasp copy would emerge as the SFA STWC-3G.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2018, 07:39:10 AM
... and Part 2

The Skinny 'Swedish Hampden' - Götaverken's GA-40

The first batch of Swedish H.P.53s were assembled by CVM - the Central Workshop - with the assistance of the Götaverken Flygavdelning. For the second batch, Götaverken became prime contractor with CVM assisting. Operational experience also dictated some changes for the H.P.53B series - as the second batch became known. The first was abandoning the requirement for interchangeable land and float undercarriages. All future 'Swedish Hampden's would be land-based. Also abandoned were any hopes of Swedish-made powerplants.

As the ex-Hereford components arrived at Göteborg from Britain, it soon became apparent that few of these ship-sets were in any way complete. Other than lacking nacelles, most wings had been shipped finished. Likewise, rear fuselage booms and tailplanes were completed. Fuselage centre sections were another matter - most being little more than a collection of unassembled pieces. Nose cone and bomb bay components were conspicuously absent (presumably having been held back to aid in English Electric's Hampton production for the RAF).

An emergency meeting of Flygvapnet technical staff reviewed the component shortfalls and began draughting a plan for completion. Some solutions were straightforward - the absence of cowling components was addressed by housing the Alfa Romeo 128 R.C.21 radials in Italian-made cowlings. [1] The missing nose 'caps' and bomb bays were another matter. After reviewing various domestically-produced nose section possibilities, the Flygvapnet opted for a much more radical option advocated by CVM engineers. Rather than replicating the missing nose and bomb-bay, CVM proposed eliminating them altogether. A 'solid' nose cap would contain the fixed armament - of two 8 mm ksp m/22 and two 13.2 mm acan m/39 machine guns - while exposed mounts beneath the wing centre section would carry the torpedo load. [2]

A new workload division was arranged. CVM would produce its own nose cap design and fuselage centre sections from modified Hereford parts. Final assembly would be performed by Götaverken - where the type was assigned the factory designation GA-40. With such dramatic changes, the type also received a new Flygvapnet designation - T 15C. [3] The T 15C was well-received by its Flygvapnet crews - its general performance being superior to the landplane T 5. Once payloads were dropped, the 'clean' T 15C wa quite a bit faster than the H.P.53A.

(Top) A T 15C (GA-40) acting as an armaments trainer (see here fitting with four nose-mounted 13.2 mm acan m/39 machine guns and underwing bomb racks). Inset: 'Flying Tadpole' - the unofficial badge of the H.P.53 development unit based at Göteborg.

With its anemic Alfa Romeo engines, the GA-40/T 15C was always intended as an interim type. The engine of choice was the SFA STWC-3G (a Swedish copy of the US Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp) and this was to power the planned 'full production' type - the GA-40A/T 15D. Although one GA-40/T 15C airframe was set aside for re-engining with STWC-3Gs, this never happened. Instead, priority for the STA radials was given to Saab B 18 bombers and FFVS J 22 fighters. It had been planned to power a second batch of imported Reggiane J 20 fighters with STWC-3Gs as well. However, when Italy decided to hold back those fighters, it was decided to re-engine most existing Flygvapnet Reggianes with SFA radials. That freed up the J 20s' Piaggio P.XI radials to power the next batch of Handley Page torpedo bombers - the GA-40B/T 15E.

As produced, the T 15Es featured not only engined taken from the Reggianne fighters but their cowlings and propellers as well. Otherwise, the GA-40B/T 15E was essentially the same as the GA-40/T 15C. A minor change was the new rear gunner's position making up for missing components. This position was initially meant to be armed with the new Bofors 20 mm autocannon but ended up with a flexibly-mounted 13.2 mm acan m/39. But an even bigger change in armament was coming ... partly dictated by the difficulties inherent in dropping torpedoes in the shallow waters of the Baltic, partly by changing operational challenges.

For the most part, Sweden's territorial waters were not being infringed upon by large warships. Instead, it tended to be German U-boats and E-boats which were challenging Swedish sovereignty - intentionally or otherwise. To provide a viable deterrent to such craft - or effectively engage infringing foreign light vessels - a heavy gun armament would be more useful than a torpedo payload. Flygvapnet technical staff investigated several options, quickly eliminating flexibly-mounted weapons. A practical choice seemed to be a fixed belly pod mounting a 25 mm Bofors  semi-automatic gun - a high-velocity naval anti-aircraft gun.

Doubts were cast upon whether the 25 mm gun's HE load was sufficient to the task at hand. Flygvapnet intelligence were well aware of German experiments with belly-mounting large-calibre guns on aircraft. Perhaps inspired by the German Henschel Hs 129B-2/Wa and its BK 3.7 gun, it was decided to 'scale up' to Bofors' 40 mm L/60 anti-aircraft gun. A mount was designed with required minimal changes to the gun itself. This mount was test-flown - without its aerodynamic fairing - on a modified T 15C in early 1944. With the concept proven, ten T 15E airframes were converted to gun-carrying 'T 15E/k' standard - soon to be redesignated as the A 15E. The remaining T 15Es also saw a change of roles - spending most of the rest of their war dropping sea mines instead of torpedos.

(Bottom) A 15E (GA-40C) anti-shipping aircraft fitted with Bofors 40 mm acan m/42 belly gun pod with twin 8 mm ksp m/22 FN-Browning aiming guns in the nose. Note revised dorsal position on late-model Götaverken's GA-40 aircraft.
______________________________________

[1] The cowlings, engine mounts, and exhaust systems adopted were virtually identical to those of wing-mounted AR 128s on Regia Aeronautica Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 bombers.

[2] This also provided more flexibility in torpedo load. While the H.P.53A carried one enclosed Torped m/40, the 'open' arrangement allowed the larger Torped m/38 to be carried on a central mount or two m/40s on twin side-by-side mounts.

[3] After 1940, the Flygvapnet designation system was revised. Many types received new designations but the H.P.53A did not. However, it did receive a new sub-type designator - the T 5 becoming the T 5A. The second series was to have become the T 5B. Instead, after its redesign, it received the new type number T 15C while continuing the sub-type letter sequence of the T 5s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 17, 2018, 01:21:48 AM
Errr...are we missing some images?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 17, 2018, 02:57:56 AM
The images are in the earlier post:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg146971#msg146971 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg146971#msg146971)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 17, 2018, 03:06:43 AM
Doh!!  Ignore me...

(https://i1.wp.com/i.pinimg.com/736x/b4/a5/94/b4a59407afe0ad9ea622dc2eed8840c0--far-side-cartoons-far-side-comics.jpg?resize=553%2C720&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 17, 2018, 07:20:47 AM
Nope, the Doh!! moment was me forgetting to bring with backstories with me at the same time as the images  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 18, 2018, 02:24:52 AM
Nope, the Doh!! moment was me forgetting to bring with backstories with me at the same time as the images  :-[

I'll shuffle over, maybe the pair of us can push this door open...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: signal on November 18, 2018, 04:26:44 AM
Love your artwork, very believable. Not too far off the subject, I hope, but your
cartoon of the kid and the door reminds me that the only man in my Army Platoon
who could not drive an Army vehicle with a stick shift was the only man with a
college degree.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 18, 2018, 04:57:30 PM
When I was monitoring alarm systems we had a brain surgeon (No joke!) who had no idea how to work his security alarm pad (4-digit number & #, eg:1234#, turned it both on & off). He actually had to call a staff member out or his wife had to accompany him if he came in to work out of hours.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 20, 2018, 06:12:01 AM
The 'Skinny' Halifax

This scenario spins off from the Rolls-Royce Vulture-powered H.P.56 bomber being delayed for a four-engined derivative - the H.P.57 Halifax. In the RW, Handley Page was none too keen on this request. Here, HP's Radlett design office have successfully argued that the revised H.P.57 will be a mediocrity. In its place, Radlett has put forward two heavy bomber designs. One is the advanced, cannon-armed H.P.58 concept. The second is the H.P.59 - a heavily reworked derivative of the H.P.57 design.

The Air Ministry encouraged the development of a hybrid design. This would combine the 'conservative' H.P.59 airframe with simplified elements of the H.P.58's armament. In place of the conceptual cannons, this hybrid would mount a number of remotely-controlled 'barbettes' armed with machine guns. The result, it was hoped, would be a faster bomber which would still be adequately protected. Handley Page agreed to this concept and work was quickly begun simultaneously on an H.P.59A prototype and its remotely-controlled armament system.

(Top) Initial Handley Page H.P.59A concept (prior to Air Ministry inspection of HP's cockpit/nose mockup)

When the H.P.59A prototype - now known as the Halifax - was completed at Radlett, its complex armament system was far from ready. Accordingly, the prototype was fitted with dummy barbettes along with appropriate ballast. This allowed Handley Page to confirm airframe balance and begin performance trials. However, when the aircraft was delivered to the A&AEE's new 'digs' at Boscombe Downs in October 1939, the armament system was still bedevilling Fraser-Nash technicians on their test rig. The Handley Page heavy bomber was very much a second 'iron in the fire' - with Avro Manchesters already being delivered to the RAF - but that did not reduce the urgency of H.P.59A delivery for the Service, the Air Ministry, or the new Ministry of Aircraft Production.

(Below) Prototype Handley Page H.P.59A Halifax Mk.I as flown with 'dummy' barbettes.

Handley Page's problem was not delivery of H.P.59A airframes - those were already rolling down the Radlett production line. The difficulty was that not a single Fraser-Nash barbette armament component had been delivered to Handley Page for installation in the new bomber. This prompted the AM and MAP to recommend emphasis shift to Avro bombers. In this new scheme, the Napier Sabre- or Bristol Centaurus-powered Manchester II was to be abandoned in favour a revised, 4-engined Merlin-Manchester III. Handley Page was to explore less radical armament options for future H.P.59 production. Meanwhile, production H.P.59As were to be diverted to Coastal Command as GR Mk.IAs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 20, 2018, 07:13:07 AM
I like these HPs very much. The barbettes are a great touch!

Your imagination and artistic skill are off the charts.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 21, 2018, 01:42:16 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 22, 2018, 05:35:00 AM
Cheers folks!

The 'Skinny' Halifax in Coastal Command Service

Almost all Radlett-built Handley Page H.P.59A Halifax bombers were delivered to Coastal Command as GR Mk.IA long-range patrol aircraft. No.58 Squadron at RAF Holmsley South was the first Coastal Command unit to take on the new type, converting from the twin-engined Armstrong-Whitworth Whitley. Working up on the new type immediately prompted comparisons with the Whitley. The gains in range and payload with the Halifax GR Mk.IA were appreciated but diminished defensive firepower compared with the was also immediate apparent.

On defensive armament installation, Handley Page had been caught between the Air Ministry and the Ministry for Aircraft Production. The former wanted a weight of armament equivalent to that of the failed Fraser-Nash remotely-controlled barbette system. The latter demanded minimal disruption to the production line with no further delays in service deliveries. Accordingly, the new defensive armament took advantage of the remote sighting positions as much as possible. As delivered, the Halifax GR Mk.IAs were armed entirely with flexibly-mounted machine guns, consisting of a nose-mounted 0.303-inch Browning and single Vickers GO machine guns in four positions - the tailcone, belly cupola, and port and starboard aft hatches (replacing the planned sighting 'bubbles').

(Top) Handley Page H.P.59A Halifax GR Mk.IA as delivered to No.58 Sqn, RAF Holmsley South [1]

Annie Get Your Gun

Handley Page was now under pressure to deliver future H.P.59 derivatives with more effective defensive armament for both Coastal and Bomber Commands. Radlett had two former Fokker designers working in the design office. These Dutch engineers proposed a tail turret similar to that of the Fokker T.V bomber. Neither Dutchman had been directly involved with the Fokker turret but designing a similar unit for the Halifax created no great difficulty. The turret was a rotating cone mostly glazed with Perspex. This cone was rotated electrically but the single, gimballed gun was aimed manually. Gun armament for this turret was a single 20mm Oerlikon cannon.

With Fraser-Nash bowing out to concentrate on conventional turrets for Avro, two Halifaxes - one Mk.IAs and one Mk.II - were provided to Boulton-Paul as armaments test beds for powered turrets. No difficulty was found in fitting a mid-upper turret - Boulton-Paul mounting its Type C Mark II 2-gun turret. However, neither Command was pleased by the drag penalty imposed by this turret - speed was, after all, one of the H.P.59A's few advantages over the Avro Lancaster). Worse was Boulton-Pauls' Type L ventral turret - a bulbous 4-gun unit. As an interim fit, Handley Page devised a fixed belly gun position. In this ventral 'bath', the gunner lay prone to aim and fire his single Browning gun in a limited arc to the rear and down. [2]

(Bottom) Halifax B.Mk.II assigned to Boulton-Paul fitted with HP tail position, BP Type C dorsal turret, and tufted BP Type L belly turret.

Coastal and Bomber Commands differed in their views on flexible-guns mounted in hatches. Coastal Command saw these mounts as potentially useful but preferred belt-fed Brownings over drum-fed Vickers GO guns. [3] Bomber Command saw little utility in gun hatches - at least for nocturnal ops - so these were omitted from later-production B.Mk.II bombers.

____________________________________

[1] Salt air is hard on all aircraft finishes but Halifax GR Mk.IAs - with Coastal Command white painted over standard Bomber Command black - quickly took on a scruffy appearance.

[2] The new ventral 'bath' design necessitated the forward movement of the entrance door. This made entry rather more awkward but facilitated emergency egress for both the ventral gunner and the two hatch gunners stationed directly above this jettisonable door.

[3] Demand on Browning production forced Coastal Command to compromise on the use of Vickers GO hatch guns until early 1945.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 22, 2018, 06:24:13 AM
Your Handley Page H.P.59A Halifax GR Mk.IA in that Coastal Command scheme is a stunner!

There's just something about that scheme that always gets me. Besides how hard it is to paint that is.

Magnificent!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 22, 2018, 06:39:48 AM
Thanks Brian. I've only tried that white-undersides Coastal Command scheme once in 3D - on a 1/72nd Liberator. The effect was totally underwhelming ... so I weathered it until it looked like it had flown through a mud storm  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 23, 2018, 01:25:53 AM
 :smiley:  :smiley:

Noice, and I think you've got the basis for a speculative
twin engined Sabre powered Volkert unarmed high/speed
bomber. Give it an even shallower rear fuselage and an
H.P. 47-ish single fin and it'd look good.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 27, 2018, 06:36:58 AM
The 'Skinny' Halifax (Continued)

The last of the Merlin-engined Halifax patrol aircraft for Coastal Command were the Halifax GR Mk.IIIs. There was no 'Halifax GR Mk.II' but the GR Mk.III incorporated many of the features of the Halifax B Mk.II model - including the 'long' nose cap, belly 'bath' position, enlarged waist gunner positions, and the 'rotating cone' tail turret. Early-production GR Mk.IIIs also retained the Boulton-Paul Type A mid-upper turret from the Halifax B Mk.II but this gun position was eliminated on later-production GR Mk.IIIs.

The Halifax GR Mk.IIIA introduced ASV Mk.II surface-search radar antennae - the upper fuselage antennae masts earning the GR Mk.IIIAs the nickname 'Stickleback'. Other than the ASV Mk.II set and some internal equipment changes, the Halifax GR Mk.IIIA was essentially the same as the preceding GR Mk.III model. Late-production Halifax GR Mk.IIIAs were interspersed on the line with GR Mk.IIICs featuring a gun pack under the cockpit for use against U-Boats which chose to fight in out on the surface. The first gun packs mounted four longer-ranging 0.5-inch Browning machine guns. These were eclipsed by packs armed with twin 20 mm Oerlikon cannons.

The fixed 20 mm gun packs were a follow-on from experiments with forward-firing cannon armaments which could be depressed. The one-off Halifax GR Mk.IIIB was fitted with twin barbettes mounted on either side of the forward fuselage. These barbettes could be depressed up to 20° while the guns were being fired. The concept was intended to prolong the firing run on surfaced submarines. However, developing guns sights capable of aiming the cannons through this arc proved very difficult and the project was abandoned in favour of the fixed-gun Halifax GR Mk.IIIC. [1]

(Top) Handley Page H.P.59C Halifax GR Mk.IIIA fitted with twin 20 mm gun barbettes for trials. Note the ASV Mk.II antennae and Vickers GO gun in the nose position.

The next production type for Bomber Command was the Halifax B.Mk IV. This model could be considered a dedicated 'Pathfinder' type. Although there were a number of detail differences, the obvious external changes were enlarged vertical tail fins and more-compact, better-streamlined engine exhaust 'muffs'. The B.Mk.IV also introduced a completely new tail turret design which allowed the gunner to sit rather than kneel. [2] This tail position had a very limited traverse compared with other British bomber turrets but was armed with two of the new, hard-hitting Vickers 15 mm high-velocity cannons.

A less obvious change for the Halifax B.Mk IV was its Boulton-Paul Type M belly turret. At a glance, the new Type M resembled the fixed belly cupola of the GR Mk.IA. However, the Type M was a fully-powered turret armed with twin Browning guns aimed through a periscopic sight. Traverse for this belly turret was 200°. Almost all Halifax B.Mk IVs also carried a BP Type A Mk.II mid-upper turret (the exceptions being dedicated electronic counter- and counter-counter measures aircraft - which were sometimes being referred to, unofficially, as 'Halifax B.Mk IVE's. [3]

The Halifax B.Mk.IVA model introduced the H2S radar set (many B.Mk.IVAs being updated Halifax B.Mk.IVs). All B.Mk.IV pathfinders also carried Oboe navigational aids (other navigation and bomb-aiming aid fitments varying between aircraft over time depending upon their efficaciousness). Ammunition supply for the tail turret was increased and later aircraft were fitted with Boulton-Paul Type M Mk.II belly turrets armed with twin 0.5-inch Browning heavy machine guns. One Halifax B.Mk.IVA was tested with a semi-retractable H2S radar radome.

(Bottom) Halifax B.Mk.IVA pathfinder of 635 Sqn, Group 8, at RAF Downham Market, Norfolk, in late 1943. Note distinctive pathfinder tail markings and revised R/T antenna arrangement.

____________________________________

[1] Ejected shell casings from the 20 mm guns tended to fly into the inner propeller discs. This was easily remedied with ejector chutes to guide the spent casings. Aerodynamic problems caused by the moveable guns' housings posed a bigger challenge. When the gun pods were depressed, they deflected the slipstream upwards. That deflected slipstream then pushedthe nose downwards - hardly a desirable attribute during high speed firing runs at very low altitude.

[2] This turret design was inspired by American B-17E heavy bombers then arriving in the UK.

[3] 'Halifax B.Mk IVE' ECM aircraft had the mid-uppers removed and plated over as part of their conversion process.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 27, 2018, 06:37:57 AM
The final production Halifax model was the B Mk.VI. Another pathfinder specialist, the Halifax B Mk.VI had no radical improvements. Rather, the B Mk.VI incorporated all the improvements introduced to the Halifax B Mk.IV through its production run as well a few experimental installations trialled on that earlier Mark. The Mk.IV production-line improvements incorporated included higher tail-gun ammunition capacity and 'upgunning' to B.Mk.IVA standards with 0.5-inch Browning guns in the nose position and belly turret. [1] Experimental Mk.IV improvements incorporated into the Halifax B Mk.VI included a semi-retractable H2S radome and extended wingtips intended to improve performance at altitude.

(Top) Halifax B Mk.VI flown by S/L Alec Cranswick, DFC, DSO. No.35 Sqn, No.5 Group, RAF Graveley. Pathfinder tail markings had not yet been applied when this aircraft was lost in July 1944. Personal markings are the Cranswick family crest beneath the cockpit and mission marks on the forward nose.

Improving the Breed? - The Handley Page H.P.60 Halifax B Mk.V Prototype

Out of sequence here is the Halifax B Mk.V prototype which flew after the Halifax B Mk.VI was already being delivered for operational use. The B Mk.V was intended to provide a major performance boost over the series Halifax B Mk.IV. There were two main focuses - lightening carried equipment where possible and reducing aerodynamic drag with new engine nacelles. Compact cowlings were taken directly from the de Havilland Mosquito (the outboard cowlings being directly interchangeable with that DH aircraft). Initial plans also called for the leading radiators from the Mosquito to be employed as well. That proved impractical as a complete redesign of the main undercarriage and its nacelles would be required. Instead, radiators for both engines on either wing to be grouped together on the inboard nacelle.

(Top) Halifax B Mk.V prototype as flown. Note low-drag Mosquito cowlings and paired radiator bath on inboard nacelle.

Ironically, the sole Halifax B Mk.V prototype never flew with the extended wingtips meant to improve the type's altitude performance. It was intended to add these tips to the prototype's modified B Mk.IV wings but the aircraft was lost before this could be implemented. The Halifax B Mk.V inflight engine fires were caused by a fault with the starboard radiator grouping. Unintentionally, this fire confirmed Air Ministry concerns that battle damage to the paired radiators would make the B Mk.V overly vulnerable in combat. In any case, the H.P.60 Halifax B Mk.V design had been eclipsed by the more heavily revised H.P.70 concept.

____________________________________

[1] Plans to rationalize ammunition supply never really materialized. Rifle-calibre 0.303-inch guns were increasingly replaced with the larger Brownings but the Halifax B Mk.VIs retained the quad-0.303 BP Type A mid-upper turret. On-going indecision as to whether new dorsal turrets should be armed with twin 0.5-inch machine guns or 15 mm cannons was a major factor.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 28, 2018, 06:24:46 AM
The updated tail gun position a`la B-17 really makes these for me!

Great stuff as always, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 29, 2018, 01:35:06 AM
!'m thinking the B-25 might be more inspiration in regard to the tail gun shown here.

For the early versions:

(http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1942/B25_Av_4204_tail-gun_p178_W.png)

For the later versions:

(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/b-25-tail-gun-don-bonfoey.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 29, 2018, 07:16:40 AM
Thanks folks!

!'m thinking the B-25 might be more inspiration in regard to the tail gun shown here.

Yes, definitely an influence ... the Mitchell was in the original backstory but I just couldn't remember exactly when the B-25 got its 'sit-up' tail position  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 30, 2018, 01:15:56 AM
The B-25 received its "sit up tail position" with the B-25H in roughly mid 1943.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 01, 2018, 07:13:21 AM
Thanks for that Greg  :smiley:

Planned Descendants of the Handley Page H.P.59 Series

Handley Page's H.P.65 concept was for a twin-engined medium bomber to replace the indifferent Armstrong-Whitworth Ablemarle. [1] The H.P.65 fuselage made as much use as possible of H.P.59 structures. The wing for the H.P.65 was, however, completely new. Whereas the H.P.59 series had a three-part wing with a 'flat' centre section, the H.P.65's advanced, laminar-flow wing was to be made in two, dihedralled parts joined on the centre-line.

The H.P.65 Hartlepool - as Handley Page dubbed their medium bomber concept - was to be powered by a pair of the new 18-cylinder Bristol Centaurus radial engines. The main undercarriage was also completely new and with a simpler retraction arrangement than with the H.P.59 series. The structure was to be entirely of metal other than the fabric-covered control surfaces (the concerns about shortages of strategic materials which prompted the mixed construction of the Ablemarle having proved largely unfounded). However, as promising as the Hartlepool appreared to be, the Ministry of Aircraft Production decided against proceeding with the H.P.65. [2]

(Top The unrealized Handley Page H.P.65 Hartlepool medium bomber as proposed)

Handley Page also proposed a 'big brother' for the H.P.65 Hartlepool. This, the H.P.70 Hull was to be a heavy bomber with much more structural commonality with the H.P.59/H.P.60 airframe. In effect, the H.P.70 Hull was an H.P.60 Halifax fitted with a longer-span version of the H.P.65's laminar-flow wing. Power was to be provided by four Bristol Centaurus engines - the H.P.70 'power eggs' being identical to those planned for the Hartlepool. The main undercarriage was that of the H.P.60 but the H.P.70 was given a new, self-centring tailwheel unit fitted with two, smaller-diameter tires.

A detail difference appeared in the new bomber's slightly extended nose. Not only was the nose-cap glazing more aerodynamically shaped, it also eliminated the hand-held nose gun with a new powered barbette armed with twin 0.5-inch Browning machine guns. This barbette had a limited traverse but considerable depression. The

In contrast with the H.P.65 Hartlepool, the H.P.70 Hull was seen as a highly desirable, 'least-mod' development of - and ultimately a replacement for - the H.P.60 Halifax. Unfortunately, fully occupied with urgent war production, Bristol was unable to dedicated much effort to the development of the Centaurus. Reluctantly, MAP officials concluded that Bristol should focus its Centaurus efforts on supplying this 18-cylinder radial to Hawkers for their Tempest II and Fury fighters. Further development of the H.P.70 Hull concept was abandoned.

(Bottom The unrealized Handley Page H.P.70 Hull heavy bomber as proposed)

____________________________________

[1] In Handley Page's internal designation system, H.P.61-through-H.P.64 were reserved for further, potential Halifax B Mk.V developments.

[2] Although the Air Ministry and RAF wanted the H.P.65 design pursued, it was conceded that the Hartlepool was likely to have little performance advantage over the American medium bombers already being supplied under Lend-Lease.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 02, 2018, 12:42:43 AM
The real world H.P. 65 Super Halibag.

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-kDddxq4/0/ae036988/O/HP65_01.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-VS3MhSw/0/30307a48/O/HP65_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 04, 2018, 06:01:24 AM
The real world H.P. 65 Super Halibag.

Exactly, except skinnier and no turbo Hercules 38s. But the single-spar laminar-flow wing stays

BTW: This is another case of no images showing for me (maybe because of the whatifmodellers link?).
__________________________________

The 'Even Skinnier' Halifax - the Handley Page H.P.75 Hastings

The Handley Page H.P.75 Hastings was derived from two unbuilt H.P.60 Halifax derivative concepts. One was the H.P.72 - a variant of the unrealized H.P.70 Hull heavy bomber. The H.P.72 was to have had turbocharged engines and incorporate a pressurized cockpit and tail position (with a return to the remotely-controlled turrets of the original H.P.59A Halifax). That original H.P.72 concept died along with the rest of the H.P.70 series but the Air Ministry remained intrigued with the possibilities for a moderately-pressurized cockpit.

The second was the H.P.80 heavy bomber concept which basically matched a stretched H.P.60 Halifax fuselage with a wider-span version of the H.P.70 Hull laminar-flow wing. Other than length and span, the biggest difference between the H.P.70 concept and the H.P.80 was the latter's use of an entirely new tricycle undercarriage. The H.P.75 Hastings was to combine features from both earlier concepts. The biggest challenge for the design team was the unavailability of the powerful 18-cylinder Bristol Centaurus engines.

The Air Ministry stipulated the use of much lower-powered Bristol Hercules radials which precipitated a major redesign. The resulting H.P.75 Hastings retained the pressure cockpit and nose barbette from the original H.P.72. The H.P.72's short-span laminar-flow wing was also retained but mated to a slimmer fuselage. This reduced the  H.P.75's bombload but this was judged acceptable for a dedicated 'Pathfinder' aircraft. The Hastings also adopted the H.P.80's tricycle undercarriage - nose gear of which displaced the semi-retractable H2S radar scanner.

On the H.P.75 Hastings, the H2S radome was relocated to the former belly turret position. That turret gave way to twin, lower-fuselage gun hatches for flexible 0.5-inch Brownings. The armament was rounded out with H.P.70 tail and mid-upper turrets and the chin barbettes. The latter gun position was remotely-controlled by the bomb-aimer. The mid-upper was a Frazer-Nash FN-160 manned turret armed with two Vickers 15 mm cannons. The tail turret was also armed with twin 15 mm Vickers but had no commonality with the twin-gun H.P.60 tail turret. The new tail position cocooned the gunner in armour plates with his reflector sight viewed through armour glass and the whole enclosed within a heated 'bubble' of Perspex. [1]

(Top) First prototype Handley Page H.P.75 Hastings with Bristol Beaufighter cowlings for its four Hercules engines.

Ironically, the H.P.75's new cockpit section was not pressurized - this now seen as unnecessary for the pathfinder role. [3] The new nose shape was more aerodynamic while allowing for the future possibility of introducing modest pressurization. With pressurization abandoned for the moment, the opportunity was taken to let more glazing into the nose section of the second prototype H.P.75 Hastings. This aircraft also featured glazed escape hatches in its upper fuselage - increasing natural interior lighting while improving emergency egress.

The major external change on the second H.P.75 were more streamlined Handley Page-designed cowlings for its 600-series Hercules engines. This series of Hercules also exchanged Bristol's traditional cowling-nose exhaust-collector ring in favour of a new rearward-directed exhaust system. The second H.P.75 was finished in a SEAC scheme as this was now the intended major area of Hastings operations. However, the War in the Pacific ended before the Hastings entered full production. Handley Page proposed that the partially-complete airframes on its Radlett line be completed to H.P.75C maritime patrol standards but this was rejected by the RAF in favour of conversions of the more plentifully-available Avro Lancaster.

(Bottom) The unrealized Handley Page H.P.70 Hull heavy bomber as proposed

Fin
____________________________________

[1] It was intended that the new tail turret eventually be upgraded with Automatic Gun-Laying using a Village Inn radar system.

[2] The use of exhaust-driven turbo-superchargers was also abandoned as unnecessary at an early stage in the H.P.75 design process.

[3] This series of Hercules also exchanged Bristol's cowling-nose exhaust-collector ring in favour of a new rear-facing exhaust system.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 04, 2018, 07:39:19 AM

Exactly, except skinnier and no turbo Hercules 38s. But the single-spar laminar-flow wing stays

BTW: This is another case of no images showing for me (maybe because of the whatifmodellers link?).


Updated the links, no longer point at What-If.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 05, 2018, 08:39:33 AM
Ju-88 looking nose on Allied bomber is quite perverse.

The execution is outstanding too!

I like the cut of your jib, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on December 05, 2018, 11:10:59 AM
Fine examples of bombermania British style  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 06, 2018, 06:56:21 AM
Thanks folks!

Brian: As you can probably tell, I have a soft spot for that Ju 388 nose.

Jon: Thanks for changing the Super Halibag links! I'm going to have to have a go at the RW H.P.65 some day...  :smiley:

No real backstory for the next ones except that Sweden gets access to the German BMW 801 radial engine sometime in 1943.

The first domestic Swedish monoplane fighter - the FFVS J22 - was underpowered with its SFA-built Twin Wasp engine. [1] However, the planned replacement - the DB 605-powered Saab J21 - was still some way off. An expedient solution was to adapt the J22 airframe to the somehat larger and heavier German BMW 801D-2 radial. In November 1943, the second of two P22 prototypes was re-engined to test this concept. As expected, trials showed that the P22/P23 hybrid lacked sufficient fin and rudder area to fully manage the extra 650 hp now available.

Next, a P23 prototype was created as a J22 production line conversion. [2] The fuselage was lengthened with an additional forward bay, effectively moving the wings and undercarriage forward in relation to the cockpit. The main landing gear was also strengthened but, otherwise, no major revisions were needed. Production proceeded in fits and starts - largely dependant upon German ability and willingness to ship the promised BMW 801Ds, Kommandogerät automatic engine control units, and VDM-9 propellers. The first production model J23 fighter entered Flygvapnet service in the Autumn of 1944. [3]

_____________________________

[1] Svenska Flygmotor AB had reverse-engineered the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial and built it without a license as the SFA STWC-3G. Based at Trollhattän, SFA was a joint subsidiary of Volvo and Bofors.

[2] In the RW, the Flygvapnet designation J23 was to have been applied to the Saab L-23 - the so-called Swedish Mustang alternative to the pusher J21.

[3] A prototype J23A was tested with four 13.2 mm FN-Browning wing guns (akin to the earlier J 22-2/J 22B). A projected J23B armed with twin 13.2 mm machine guns with a pair of 20 mm Bofors akan m/45 cannons underslung in pods was overtaken by the preferred Saab J21 fighter.
_____________________________

BTW: The images were based on a Plane Encyclopedia J22A sideview combined with the canopy and undercarriage from the Planet Models box art.

 -- http://www.plane-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1.-FFVS-J.22A-F10-22185_03.png (http://www.plane-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1.-FFVS-J.22A-F10-22185_03.png)
 -- https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/5/2/1027352-12741-71-pristine.jpg (https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/5/2/1027352-12741-71-pristine.jpg)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 07, 2018, 01:31:07 AM
If you're playing with the J22, any chance of a standard one in Ethiopian markings to serve alongside their real world B-17s:

(http://www.acig.info/UserFiles/File/SubSaharanAfr/Ethiopia_and_Eritrea_1950_1991/ieaf_saab_b17b.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 07, 2018, 08:50:22 AM
I really like the look of your J23s, apophenia!

I find Swedish aircraft from that era interesting and you've come up with an excellent progression!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 08, 2018, 06:39:36 AM
If you're playing with the J22, any chance of a standard one in Ethiopian markings to serve alongside their real world B-17s...

For sure, maybe doped silver to match the B17s ... or desert camo?

Brian: Thanks! Here's some whif FFVS J22 variants ...
_________________________________________________

Eksport - the FFVS J22E for Finland

The first is a J22E in full Finnish markings. [1] In Ilmavoimat service, the J22E was nicknamed 'Ruotsalainen' ('The Swede'). Less flatteringly, the J22 was also dubbed Fyrkka ('The Needful') - a  nickname based on its sketchy maintenance record. The J22 may not have been well suited to Finnish operating conditions but maintenance issues were exacerbated by Helsinki under-investing in spares.

(Top) Ilmavoimat FFVS J22E, note German-supplied R/T mast and antenna.

Vatten - the FFVS J22V Float Fighter

The FFVS J22V was a straightforward floatplane (sjöflygplan) adaptation of the J22A. A single, main float (central ponton) tied into the landplane's landing gear mounting points. Wing ribs were strengthened to allow for the twin outrigger floats (stabiliserande flottörer). An enlarged vertical tail and rudder were substituted for the originals but, otherwise, the airframe remained largely unchanged. [2]

The J22V prototype was prepared to meet the Flygvapnet's requirement for an Öjakt or 'Island Fighter'. In theory, the Öjagern were to provide additional fighter coverage from 'unbombable' bases. Of course, Sweden's many lakes and its Baltic shoreline were only useable when ice-free. But, this view of the Öjakt concept was something of a ruse.

In reality, the Flygvapnet was trying to match a secret Swedish defence scenario. That was: a potential Swedish take over of the Åland Islands in the Gulf of Bothnia should Finland fall to the Soviets. The idea was that a fait accompli occupation would thwart any plans by the Soviet (or Nazi Germany) to occupy those islands. No serious planning was undertaken for such an occupation as Stockholm had realized that the Ålands were effectively beyond the reach for the Swedish military.

All of the strategizing was a moot point for the Öjagern team. The overall performance of the float-fitted J22V was singularly disappointing. The float fighter retained a surprising degree of manoeuvrability but its lowered top speed made its chances of intercepting attacking aircraft improbable and any success in fighter-to-fighter combat highly unlikley. Accordingly, the Öjakt programme was quietly abandoned and the sole J22V was reduced to spares for its landflygplan bretheren.

(Bottom) Prototype FFVS J22V (white stripe on float pylon indicates new crew mounting steps. Note that this aircraft has note yet been fitted with its radio antenna.

____________________________________

[1] The Ilmavoimat J22E purchase was made necessary by difficulties with the domestic fighter programme - the VL Myrsky. After brief use with fighter squadrons, the surviving J22s were re-equipped for the fighter-reconnaissance role.

[2] Initially, it was planned that the float fighter would have a larger range due to added fuel tanks. Later, to lower all-up weight it was decided to eliminate the land-fighter's fuselage tank and rely entirely upon the two fuel tanks within the main float.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 08, 2018, 07:01:23 AM
Love the floatplane version :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 08, 2018, 07:01:50 AM
For sure, maybe doped silver to match the B17s ... or desert camo?

Your choice.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 08, 2018, 07:04:57 AM
For sure, maybe doped silver to match the B17s ... or desert camo?

Your choice.

Well, it'll have to be both then  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 08, 2018, 07:08:08 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on December 08, 2018, 01:55:13 PM

nice floatplane
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 08, 2018, 11:18:55 PM
I like the J23's more than the J22's but they're both good looking little aircraft. :smiley:

I really like the H.P 75, too, except for the nose glazing. It looks a bit wrong. To me, it lacks that certain "Britishness" I would expect from a Handley Page bomber.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 09, 2018, 08:27:38 AM
Love the floatplane version :smiley:

Oh yes!!!  :-*

The only thing that would be better than floats are of course, spats.

 :-* :-* :-*

Great stuff! I'll be in my bunk if you need me....

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on December 10, 2018, 03:52:55 AM
Definitely the float version is impressive,I like the subject...nicely done !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 11, 2018, 07:18:41 AM
Thanks folks. And, Brian, don't think I wasn't tempted by a spatted J22  ;)
____________________

The post-WW2 Imperial Ethiopian Air Force (Ye Ithopya Ayer Hayl) was founded with Swedish assistance. The first postwar Ethiopian ye’asashi awiropilani (fighter aircraft) was the Swedish-designed FFVS J22BE [1] selected by the head of the Swedish air delegation, Count Carl Gustaf von Rosen. All Ethiopian fighters were ex-Flygvapnet aircraft fitted with some Ethiopian-requested equipment - most notable the armament of four US 50-calibre Browning machine guns. [2]

(Top) FFVS J22BE of the YIAH's first fighter flight based at Bole airfield, Addis Ababa. This aircraft has its original Flygvapnet camouflage overpainted with a 'desert blotch' scheme. [3] On the forward fuselage is the Lion of Judah emblem (perhaps the personal marking of the Flight Leader?).

(Bottom) FFVS J22BE of the YIAH's second fighter flight based at Bishoftu airfield. Part of the second batch, this replacement J22BE is covered in silver dope to better match the natural metal finish of the YIAH's Saab B17 attack bombers.
____________________

[1] A variation on the original Flygvapnet J22B designation is used with 'E' for Etiopien added.

[2] In Swedish service, the J22Bs were armed with four similar FN-Browning guns chambered for 13.2mm ammunition.

[3] Inspired by the camouflage patterns on Flygvapnet Reggiane Re-2000 fighters, the Italian origins of the initial J22BE scheme was not appreciated by authorities in Addis Ababa.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 11, 2018, 07:20:24 AM
The FFVS J22 was always intended as a 'fill-in' fighter until the arrival of the Flygvapnet's preferred Saab J21 twin-boomed pusher-prop fighter. FFVS designer Bo Lundberg draughted the J22 so that the aircraft could be comparatively easily converted to a 2-seat trainer configuration. [1] The difficulty faced was in relocating the main fuselage fuel tank ... a conundrum not tackled until after the end of WW2.

As the Saab J21 fighter began to arrive in numbers, Lundberg once again proposed the conversion of Flygvapnet J22s as 2-seat trainers. Initially, FMV officials in Stockholm were lukewarm on the concept. Their priority was the soonest possible replacement for the remaining imported J 20 (Reggiane Re-2000) fighters. It was also believed that the J22 could readily be converted into camera-equipped reconnaissance fighters - which subsequently happened with the 1947 S22C conversions.

In the meantime, an FFVS design team under Bo Lundberg refined their 2-seat trainer conversion concept. This was finally realized with a privately-funded J22A conversion which was designated P22D for Flygvapnet trials. [2] This aircraft demonstrated Lundberg's solution to relocating the fuselage fuel tank to twin underwing 'pods'. The new tanks resembled the 'drop tanks' which had become common during the war but these were fixed installations. [3]

African Genesis - a Two-Seat J22 Conversion in Ethiopia

In the meantime, a 2-seat trainer conversion of the J22 fighter had been completed elsewhere as an expedient field modification. In East Africa, a Swedish advisory team under Count von Rosen was helping to establish the new Imperial Ethiopian Air Force (Ye Ithopya Ayer Hayl of YIAH). Although now seen as a modest performer in Europe, in YIAH service, the FFVS J22BE was viewed as a 'hot ship' and the attrition rate was fairly high. Accordingly, von Rosen's assistant, Colonel Ingvar Berg organized the conversion of a J22BE with a faulty main fuselage fuel tank.

This aircraft was fitted with a second cockpit, open on top with Perspex side-flaps to ease egress and exit. The landing gear was fixed in the 'down' position and the former main undercarriage bay was filled with bag tanks for fuel. Unfortunately, these bag tanks were too small, severely reducing the aircraft's range. Plans were made to bulge the belly panels to allow a larger tank to be installed but this was never carried out. At an early stage, the trainer's spinner was removed to improve engine cooling. The spinnerless airscrew, fixed landing gear, and restricted range all contributed to reducing the aircraft's usefulness as an advanced trainer.

Seconded Flygvapnet ground crews undertook the conversion of the 'Etiopien skolflyg' during the wet season of 1948. The 'J22BE-Sk' was intended as a familiarization trainer but was comparatively short-lived. The aircraft was mainly employed as a transport 'hack' shuttling Haile Selassie's liaison officer back-and-forth between Addis and Bishoftu airfield. [5] This liaison officer, Col Assefa Ayene, made every attempt to thwart von Rosen's efforts. So, few tears were shed among the Swedish contingent when Ayene was lost when 'his' J22BE-Sk crashed in to a taxiing Dakota while landing in the dark at Bole field in Addis Ababa.

The Flygvapnet Get its Two-Seat Trainers

In early 1947, the FMV agreed to a trial batch of Sk22D trainers - as the 2-seater conversions were now designated. [4] FFVS began the ten requested trainer conversions after its S22C work was finished. The final Sk22D conversions was completed and delivered to the Flygvapnet by March of 1948. These aircraft were fitted with entirely new cockpit canopies - the front operating like the original, the rear canopy sliding aft to give the instructor a better view while landing and taxiing.

Lundberg also planned for an armaments training version which would retain two of the smaller-calibre wing guns from the J22A. This was never pursued by the FMV and the Flygvapnet only operated the unarmed Sk22D trainers until 1952 when all FFVS aircraft were phased out of service. In the end, the Flygvapnet concluded that its Sk14 (North American/Saab NA 16) was entirely adequate for the advanced training role. Rather than continue with the Sk22D, FMV chose to procure more readily-available, war-surplus versions of the NA 16 type. Some 143 Noorduyn-built Harvards had began entering Flygvapnet service as the Sk16A in 1947. The Sk22D trainers were replaced in 1952 with further NA 16s - Texans and SNJs - purchased from the US.

____________________

[1] The convertable single- or two-seater configuration may have been inspired by prewar Seversky designs - which Lundberg's was exposed to in his role of head of the Swedish Air Commission in the USA.

[2] This designation retained the type number in the J22 series with a new sub-type suffix. The Flygvapnet's 'P' for Provflygplan (Trials Aircraft) replaced the 'J' for Jakt designator.

[3] Unfamiliar with 'drop tank' operations, Flygvapnet insisted that skids be mounted on the undersides of the wing pods ... something of throw-back to the anti-ground loops skids of some WW1 aircraft.

[4] With the concept now proven, the 'P' for Provflygplan designator gave way to a 'Sk' for Skolflygplan (School Aircraft) prefix applied to Flygvapnet trainers.

[5] The Emperor was Supreme Commander of the YIAH. His liaison, Col Ayene, was an Imperial Guard officer.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 12, 2018, 01:46:21 AM
(https://aintnogod.com/ipb/uploads/gallery/album_17/gallery_298_17_1836.gif)

The mention of the J21makes me wonder how one would go shoehorning a DB605 into the J22....
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 12, 2018, 06:44:18 AM
The mention of the J21makes me wonder how one would go shoehorning a DB605 into the J22....

I was wonder the same. Probably need to move the cockpit waaay back. Hmmm ...

Meanwhile, back to Handley page ...

Laminar-Flow Wing 'Super Halifax' - The Handley Page H.P.65

Jon's drawings allowed a bash at the H.P.65 'Super Halibag', an unbuilt Handley Page project meant to give a renewed life to the firm's Halifax heavy bomber...

Those H.P. drawings show plenty of detail for the turbo-superchargers for the Bristol Hercules 38 radials and the new, twin-wheeled main undercarriage units. [1] There's rather less detail on defensive armaments. The nose gun looks pretty much like that of the Halifax as does the tail turret ... except that the later seems to have only two guns. Based on the tail turret's appearance, I've assumed it to be a twin 0.5-inch derivative of the Boulton Paul Type E.

The mid-upper turret is another barrel of fish. It is a curious, half-hemisphere affair armed with twin large-calibre guns. It looks nothing like the Martin 250 CE turrets imported for the Avro Lancaster B.Mk.VII nor the Bristol B.17 built for the Avro Lincoln ... both which had flat-ish tops. But its armament does suggest the B.17's twin 20 mm British Hispano cannons.

(Top) First prototype Handley Page H.P.65 Hendon showing off its new, twin-wheel main undercarriage and four-bladed props. Note 0.303-inch nose gun and the by-then-obsolete ARI 5664 'Monica' rear-warning antenna beneath tail turret.

The H.P.65's bulged bomb bays resulted in a 'kinked' lower fuselage line which provided a natural spot for belly protection. But of what sort? Who knows, so I've left that space blank. That 'kink' creates a quandry for the H2S radar scanner position, though. It won't fit on the rear belly anymore ... so I've plopped it in under the cockpit.

(Bottom) Operational Handley Page Hendon B.Mk.IA of No.466 Squadron, RAAF after the unit re-deployed back to Australia. [2] Note SEAC markings, forward-mounted H2S radome, and 0.5-inch nose gun. The B.Mk.IA introduced the  AGL(T) or Automatic Gun-Laying Turret code-named 'Village Inn'.

________________________________________

[1] In the 3-view drawing, the Hercules 38s look a little underscale to my eyes but I left them as originally rendered.

[2] Since a re-deployed No.466 would no longer be a part of No.4 Group, I've left off that Group's tail recognition markings of three horizontal yellow stripes (as worn by No.466 Halifaxs in Europe).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 12, 2018, 11:01:32 AM
A ball turret would go in there quite nicely, I think.

Maybe not quite the same coverage as on the B-17 but still pretty good.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 13, 2018, 08:38:56 AM
Those look great and I really like that new tail turret!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 14, 2018, 03:07:41 AM
Looking at the turrets on those last ones, would I be correct in assuming these are the same type:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/SIP6DRHdByI/AAAAAAAAA8g/gmwvcBxIuSk/s400/Boulton-Paul+Type+H+Mk+II+20mm+mid-upper+turret+on+Lancaster.jpg)(https://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=201738&sid=eba6a1dddc7980f46b6c5d489820e639)


This could also be an interesting development:

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32505d1299767491t-lancaster-turret-layout_of_the_bp_remotely_controlled_defence_system.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/32504d1299767491t-lancaster-turret-upper___lower_barbettes.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 16, 2018, 06:25:40 AM
HP 65 upper turret B-P Type T, tail turret B-P Type D
as used on late Halifax.

The S and T turrets were intended to be produced in the US,
one T prototype was tested on Halifax R9436 in 1942.

The tail turret in Greg's photo is a Type D with the Airborne
Gun Laying for Turrets (AGLT) radar system.
Code name "Village Inn".
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 16, 2018, 06:56:22 AM
Thanks folks!

This could also be an interesting development:

Indeed it could! Although of smaller calibre, that was kind of the vibe I was going for with the original 'Skinny' Halifax. Amazing to see that the trials aircraft retained its original No.221 Squadron codes!

Jon: Fascinating as always! So, the H.P.65 tail turret was just a more-or-less standard Type D but armed with twin 0.5-inch guns? I'd never heard of either the Type S or Type T. Any idea who in the US was to build 'em?

Another turret-y question: Does anyone have any info on the 15 mm turret guns planned by Vickers? Was the cartridge related to anything else? ... 15 mm Besa cartridge? Necked-down pre-war Vickers .661-inch (16.8 mm) anti-aircraft cartridge?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 16, 2018, 07:50:55 AM
All D turret were twin .50.
The S was a tail turret, I have no info on who in the
US was to be the manufacturer.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on December 16, 2018, 08:54:37 AM

([url]http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-VS3MhSw/0/30307a48/O/HP65_02.jpg[/url])


This turbo exhaust arrangement was used for real on the Wellington Mk.V high altitude. Maybe I could make some castings of what I've done for the Mk.V I have on the go
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 17, 2018, 01:37:37 AM
All D turret were twin .50.
The S was a tail turret, I have no info on who in the
US was to be the manufacturer.

According to 'the bible' (see below), the BP Type S was actually a modified BP Type E with twin 0.5s.  Although it was taken to the US for potential building, there is no record of anyone doing so, though there are also comments that Sperry adopted one of the features.
(https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/193348806/original/53492ec1ac/1543930840?v=1)
The manned Mid upper turret I showed was actually a BP Type H.  This was to be armed with twin 20 mm (0.78 in) Hispanos or 2 x 15mm (0.59 in) cannon of a type developed by Vickers at Crayford. The Vickers guns did not materialise, however, and the 1st prototype was a Test-firing mock-up with 20 mm (0.78 in) Hispano guns (as shown in pic above).  Here are some other images of it:

(https://tailendcharlietedchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bp_typehturret.jpg?w=445&h=680&zoom=2)(https://tailendcharlietedchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bpsidetypehturret.jpg?w=618&h=474&zoom=2)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2018, 06:39:23 AM
Great stuff. Thanks guys! I like the sounds of that 15mm but it sounds like Vickers were over-extended.
_____________________________

The J22DB was Flygförvaltningens Verkstad i Stockholm's 'least-mod' attempt at a DB 605A-powered derivative of the FFVS J22 fighter. Other than the engine installation, the major modification was an extended tail section (with aftward relocated tail wheel). The tail mod was deemed necessary to restore the c/g while improving controllability. Concerns over c/g remained after FMV insisted upon moving the engine coolant radiator from a planned rear-fuselage 'bath' to an under-nose position. [1]

Two production variants of the Daimler-engined fighter were envisioned: the J22F (known as the J22DB-1 to FFVS) with German-supplied guns; and two versions of the J22G (J22DB-3 to FFVS) with Swedish armament. [2] The J22G-1 interceptor (J22DB-3T to FFVS) was to have a 20 mm Bofors m/45 motor-cannon and two 13.2 mm Ericsson akan m/39A (licensed FN-Browning) wing-mounted machine guns. The J22G-2 close-support aircraft (J22DB-3SJ to FFVS) was to have the 20 mm m/45 and four 13.2 mm wing guns. [3]

The proposed J22DB (for 'Daimler Benz') proceeded no further than a mockup engine installation. The illustration shows the final fin/rudder and tail wheel positions although these were not exhibited on the mockup shown to officials from the FMV and Flygvapnet at Stockholm in late 1944. Although far from complete, J22DB development ended by the end of the year when Germany offered Sweden surplus Messerschmitt Bf 109G-6s as alternative interim fighters.

The German fighters were delivered by air in early 1945 but these aircraft lacked essential operational equipment held back by the Germans. These fighters were also completely stripped of Luftwaffe camouflage and refinished in a new, overall pale grey scheme. [4] Flygvapnet service entry - as the Messerschmitt J24 - was delayed as the fleet was repainted and equipped with Swedish radios plus other required kit. [5] The J24 finally entered Flygvapnet service just as the European war ended.

Shortly after the war, Sweden arranged with the Czechs to supply certain Messerschmitt parts not readily available from European scrapyards. This arrangement resulted in a visual change for the fleet. As the J24B, Swedish 'Gustavs' substituted Czech-made sliding canopies as used on the Avia S-199 version. Illustrated is a postwar trials aircraft - hence the 'Svart Xerxes' or 'Black X' tail marking - with a more aerodynamic experimental canopy. This one-off J24C has a Luftwaffe belly rack mounted - which was usual for J24s The hökens öga ('hawk's eye') on the gun bulges was a fleet-wide marking. [6]

Swedish Messerschmitt J24s were replaced in Flygvapnet service by vastly superior North American J26 Mustang fighters in 1947.

___________________________________

[1] FMV staff were convinced that operating the J22's main undercarriage doors would interfere with airflow into any radiator mounted under the rear fuselage.

[2] Rejected was an FFVS proposed for a J22DB-2 interceptor with an SFA-built DB 605B. This engine lacked the facility for either a motor cannon or synchronization gear for cowl-mounted guns. J22DB-2 armament was to consist solely of four, wing-mounted 13.2 mm guns as per the radial-engined J22-2 (known as the J22B to the Flyvapnet).

[3] Other armament options discussed were cowl-mounted Ericsson akan m/39As in place of the German MG131s; matching the German MG151/20 engine gun with Swedish wing guns; mounting five m/39As (including as an engine gun); and three 20 mm Bofors m/45s - one firing through the propeller hub and two mounting in underwing pods.

[4] Previous attempts to refinish Flygvapnet aircraft in overall silver proven unsuccessful as the dope used showed wear very quickly.

[5] The RW Saab-24 was a twin-engined multi-purpose aircraft proposal dubbed "Den Svenska Mosquiton". Somewhat resembling a trike-geared Messerschmitt Bf 110, the Saab-24 was to have been powered by twin DB 605B engines. The Saab-24 project only reached the wind tunnel model stage.

[6] The hökens öga was adopted after a similar, personal marking was found to reduce bird strikes. Ironically, this J24C trials aircraft was lost into the Baltic Sea after a bird strike to its prototype windscreen.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 18, 2018, 07:21:01 AM
I like the eyeball.  ;D

That canopy is a natural on a 109 as well.

Most excellent, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 18, 2018, 09:03:01 AM
I like the eyeball.  ;D

That canopy is a natural on a 109 as well.

Most excellent, apophenia!

Brian da Basher

Agree entirely! :smiley: 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 19, 2018, 02:20:39 AM
 :smiley:

What's the canopy on the J24C from - a late model Avia S-199?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 19, 2018, 07:56:45 AM
Thanks folks!

What's the canopy on the J24C from - a late model Avia S-199?

It is ... more-or-less. The frame is identical. I modified the Perspex canopy slightly to line up better with the new windscreen (the Avia canopy has a bit of a 'bump' where it meets the '109 windscreen frame).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 20, 2018, 02:06:01 AM
The real life canopy in question I believe:

(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/StarSide_S199_KB_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 22, 2018, 08:19:46 AM
The real life canopy in question I believe:

That's the one  :smiley:

I was pondering the structure of the FFVS J22. With its steel spars and wood-panelled steel-tube fuselage, the J22 was much simpler to build than its cancelled, all-metal predecessor concept - the unbuilt Götaverken GP 9 fighter. But the complex, rearward-retracting undercarriage also inherited from GP 9 design gives me pause.

So, what about a lower-wing J22 with a more conventional undercarriage system?

I've got no real backstory here. Let's say, Bo Lundberg doesn't return from his job as head of the Swedish Air Commission in the US. Instead, he is offered a design job at Vultee Aircraft (where he was overseeing production of the Model 48C fighters intended for the Flygvapnet). [1] and before that chief designer of Götaverken's aircraft division during the time they designed the GP 8 bomber which competed with SAAB 18 and the cancelled GP 9 fighter.

So, without Lundberg in charge, the design staff of the newly-formed FFVS are less enamoured with Bo's GP 9 undercarriage arrangement. Instead, arrangement is made with VDM Altena, makers of the main gear for the German Bf 109, for the supply of undercarriages and a license to manufacture copies in Sweden.

Adapting the preliminary FFVS fighter design to the German undercarriage - after all, the J22 wing plan and area were virtually identical to those of the Messerschmitt fighter. One big change would be the reduced space for wing-mounted armament. That dictates a pair of cowl guns which, in turn, dictates moving the cockpit aft (in comparison with the RW J22). Those cowl guns would matched with another pair of machine guns mounted in the wings outboard of the retracted main wheels.
________________________

[1] The Model 48Cs were never delivered due to a US Government embargo on arms exports to Sweden. The Model 48Cs went to the RAF as Vultee Vanguards.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 22, 2018, 09:02:05 PM
What if they got talking to Hawker & went for the more stable wide-track landing gear of the Hurricane? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 23, 2018, 02:13:31 AM
Here's another scenario:  The Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 called a lot of concern in the rest of Scandinavia.  Whilst the so-called Winter War officially ended in March 1940, the concern remained.  In June 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa.  Coincident with this, the Finnish Defence Forces launched their own offensive.  This war would become known as the Continuation War.  Whilst not wanting to get officially involved in the German led war against the USSR, the Swedish Govt did allow for 'volunteers' to fight with the Finnish Defence Forces.  As part of this a 'volunteer' unit equipped initially with Fiat CR.42s operated in Ilmavoimat markings.  Later in 1943, the CR.42s were replaced with FFVS J22s also in Ilmavoimat markings...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 29, 2018, 07:16:11 AM
What if they got talking to Hawker & went for the more stable wide-track landing gear of the Hurricane? ;)

Here's another scenario:  The Soviet invasion of Finland on 30 November 1939 called a lot of concern in the rest of Scandinavia.  Whilst the so-called Winter War officially ended in March 1940, the concern remained.  In June 1941, Germany launched Operation Barbarossa.  Coincident with this, the Finnish Defence Forces launched their own offensive.  This war would become known as the Continuation War.  Whilst not wanting to get officially involved in the German led war against the USSR, the Swedish Govt did allow for 'volunteers' to fight with the Finnish Defence Forces.  As part of this a 'volunteer' unit equipped initially with Fiat CR.42s operated in Ilmavoimat markings.  Later in 1943, the CR.42s were replaced with FFVS J22s also in Ilmavoimat markings...

Hmm, may have to circle 'round for another go at the FFVS fighters  >:D   But, meanwhile, a RW design, albeit, not one built in this exact form ...

The genesis story of the P-51 Mustang always begins in April 1940 with North American Aviation being invited to license-build the Curtiss Kittyhawk for the RAF. NAA President 'Dutch' Kindelberger counters this proposal with an offer to build a superior fighter of original design. The British Air Purchasing Commission accepts this offer while raising the stakes - a prototype this new fighter must be completed within 120 days. North American Aviation rises to the challenge and the prototype NA-73X is essentially completed in 117 days. And a legend is born.

But, as with most legends, there was more to this story. NAA designer, Edgar Schmued had produced an Allison-powered fighter concept as far back as 1935 - two years before design work began on the Curtiss XP-37 or Bell XP-39 pursuits. More to the point, several months before that meeeting with the British Air Purchasing Commission, Ed Schmued had sketched out a fresh fighter design which looked very much like the NA-73 Mustang. This new design was shown in NAA Drawing No. P-509 rendered circa February 1940.

The Drawing No. P-509 design had a vague resemblance to the as-yet-unbuilt Curtiss XP-46 fighter - prototypes of which had been ordered by the USAAC several months earlier. Drawing No. P-509 illustrated a sleek fighter with trapezoidal laminar-flow wings, a shallow belly radiator bath mounted far back on rear fuselage, and a square-cut tailplane (similar in shape to the tail of the unbuilt NAA P-500 light fighter concept for the French). The outline of what would become the NA-73 Mustang was already evident in February 1940.

Top - c. Feb. 1940 North American Aviation fighter concept (Drawing No. P-509). Note the cowling-mounted guns (mounted somewhat higher on the fuselage than in the built NA-73).

Just prior to the April meeting with the British, the design was slightly revised. The most noticeable change in Drawing No. P-509-1 produced on 10 March 1940 was the lengthening and movement forward of the radiator bath.

Bottom - 10 March 1940 North American Aviation fighter concept (Drawing No. P-509-1). Note the cowling-mounted guns (mounted somewhat higher on the fuselage than in the built NA-73). Here, I've shown the quartet of wing-mounted machine guns shown on the mockup of this design. I've also added a few Mustang-like details - tail balance, rudder trim tab, etc., not shown in NAA Drawing No. P-509-1.

Ed Schmued and Raymond Rice still had some way to go before finalizing the design built as the NA-73X prototype. The most obvious changes would be a revised cockpit canopy and a lengthened rear fuselage. The longer fuselage pushed the vertical tail and rudder aft but not the horizontal tailplane. The canopy was simplified in shape (the curvacious windscreen retained on the NA-73X prototype, giving way to a flat, armour-glass panel on production Mustangs. [1] A minor change is the Allison's carberettor intake being extended forward [2] and no longer fairing into the windscreen. The latter may suggest that the NA-73X's upper fuselage line has been raised slightly compared with Drawing No. P-509-1.

____________________________________

[1] The rear quarterlight transparencies were also changed - being shortened to greatly resemble those of the XP-46.

[2] This air intake would be extended still further forward on production NA-73 Mustangs.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 29, 2018, 09:22:02 AM
"Moving Towards the Mustang"?!!

How'd you know I have at least four P-51s in the stash?

Sometimes it's like you've got a camera on me or sumthin'.

Great work and you really nailed the look of an early Mustang! I really like the new back windows.

I think there's lots of fodder in unknown interim prototypes.

Great stuff and always food for thought!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 30, 2018, 02:35:27 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 30, 2018, 07:24:04 AM
How'd you know I have at least four P-51s in the stash?

Sometimes it's like you've got a camera on me or sumthin'...

If you build one of your P-51 stash kits in the form of Drawing No. P-509-1, I'll turn the camera off. Promise ...  ;)

______________________________________

Now into the realm of the complete whif ...

Export Fighter - North American Aviation's NA-50S Nemesis

The first North American Aviation fighter design for export market was the NA-50 - a straightforward single-seat derivative of the firm's NA-26 2-seat trainer. Seven Wright Cyclone-powered NA-50 fighters were delivered to Peru by May 1939 but no other interest in this modest 'economy fighter' were immediately forthcoming. The NAA design office's attention returned to an earlier NA-50 proposal - the more advanced NA-50L with the 'L' for its laminar-flow wing.

The NA-50 concept was a radial-engined outgrowth of Ed Schmued's still-born 1935 fighter design powered by an Allison V-12 engine. To reduce development costs, the fuselage was redesigned to make use of as many components as possible from North American's basic/advanced 2-seat trainers. One NA-50 development line retained the 1935 design's wing, another - emerging as the NA-50 - adopted a shortened NA-26 trainer wing. The later NA-50L concept combined features of the more advanced NA-50 concept with a new NACA laminar-flow wing section. [1]

In its original form, the NA-50L was to be powered by a 1,050 hp Pratt & Whitney R-1830-SC3G Twin Wasp radial [2] driving a three-bladed Hamilton-Standard constant-speed propeller with its hub enclosed in a streamlined spinner. Armament was to comprise a pair of .50-calibre machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller disc. Optional wing-gun armament could consist of another pair of .50-calibres or a quartet of .30-calibre guns firing outside of the propeller arc.

Interest was expressed in the NA-50L by the government of Siam. Initially, Bangkok considered a cannon-armed derivative of the NA-50A but Siamese officials were swayed by the superior performance offered by the NA-50L. Two options were examined. The first would be powered by an R-1820-G205A Cyclone engine and armed with two 20 mm Madsen cannons and a pair of 7.62 mm machine guns. The second scheme would be more of an 'off-the-peg' offering - retaining the standard Twin Wasp engine (albeit fitted with a Curtiss Electric airscrew) and armed with eight 7.62 mm machine guns. The lower cost of option 2 convinced Bangkok to place an order for a dozen NA-50S fighters built to this standard. [3]

North American extensively marketed the NA-50S as the Nemesis fighter. There was a goodly amount of interest from foreign governments but NAA was trying to enter a market already dominated by the Curtiss Model 75 Hawk. In the end, even the Siam deal fell through when the US government banned sales to Thailand (as the country had by then been renamed). Ironically, the only service user of NA-50S Nemesis 'export fighter' was the US Army Air Force. The USAAF received all 12 NA-50S fighters destined for Thailand and operated them as P-64s. Although designated as 'Pursuits', the P-64s never saw action - serving exclusively as advanced trainers for future Army fighter pilots.
____________________________________

[1] This same laminar-flow section would also eventually appear on the P-509 progenitors to the NA-73 Mustang.

[2] As had been planned for the unbuilt North American NA-50B - based on the NA-50 airframe but Twin Wasp-powered

[3] For added economy, the Siamese fighters were armed with only six 7.62 mm wing guns but those aircraft were equipped to receive the full complement of eight guns if desired.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 30, 2018, 07:25:13 AM
The Trials of Nemesis - Testbed North American NA-50S Aircraft

Several NA-50S airframes were used as trials aircraft. One of the original Siamese/Thai NA-50S airframes was modified to air test a 20 mm Madsen cannon installation. It was anticipated that this might facilitate a second batch of Thai 'export fighter' orders but that hope was dashed by the US Government's export ban. In the end, the 'cannon fighter' was modified back to standard four-machine gun form.

As previously noted, the cancelled delivery of Thai NA-50S resulted in the dozen aircraft being taken over by the US Army Air Corps as P-64s (the Nemesis name not being used in US service). These aircraft were operated as advanced fighter-trainers and were sometimes referred to as 'TP-64s'. In late 1942, the former 'cannon fighter' testbed was returned to North American Aviation for needed repairs to its restored wing armament bays. Since NAA required a testbed aircraft, a simpler expedient was employed of eliminating the armament and reinforcing the empty gun bays.

This aircraft - USAAF 41-1573 - was used by North American to test turbo-supercharger installations. The 'blower' was fitted into a belly fairing with a variety of fresh-air intake shapes being tested. The trial installation was never intended to be specific to turbocharged P-64 development. Instead, it was to gather data which might prove useful in later B-25 and P-51 developments. A 'blower' fire put 41-1573 permanently out of action and it ended its days as an instructional airframe.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on December 31, 2018, 05:05:15 AM
I really like your Nemesises, apophenia!

You've got a real gift for hitting on many of my esoteric interests and this one is like what the P-64 might've been.

Great stuff as always and your rendering of the NMF is outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 31, 2018, 02:34:36 PM
The Peruvian aircraft were simply NA-50 (NA-16-5) and not the same as the NA-68 (NA-50A) ordered
by Thailand and taken over by the US as the P-64. The NA-68s had a redesigned empennage and canopy
along with a heavier armament. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2019, 07:48:23 AM
Cheers Brian and thanks Jon for the corrections (changes to 'NA-50' now made in the text).

For those interested, there is a NA-50 Torito preserved on a pylon in Peru:
https://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/delaPuente/10962.htm (https://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/delaPuente/10962.htm)

Planet Models do a CAP NA-50 in 1/48 (PLT238):
http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/planet238reviewse_1.htm (http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/planet238reviewse_1.htm)

There is also an extant NA-50(sic)/NA-50A/NA-68/P-64 owned by the EAA:
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa-museum/museum-collection/aircraft-collection-folder/1940-north-american-p-64-na-50---n840 (https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa-museum/museum-collection/aircraft-collection-folder/1940-north-american-p-64-na-50---n840)

Xotic-72 does a 1/72 P-64 (XK2030):
http://www.internetmodeler.com/2006/august/first-looks/xotic_p64.php (http://www.internetmodeler.com/2006/august/first-looks/xotic_p64.php)

Planet Models also does the P-64 in 1/48 (PLT239):
https://www.agapemodels.com/2012/06/08/build-report-planet-models-148-p-64/ (https://www.agapemodels.com/2012/06/08/build-report-planet-models-148-p-64/)

There's been a few Harvard/Texan conversions simulating NA-50s and P-64s - some successive likenesses, some not so much. And there's been similar scale model conversion attempts: http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/features/aircraft/baker_p64/baker_p64.htm (http://www.ipmsusa.org/reviews/features/aircraft/baker_p64/baker_p64.htm)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 05, 2019, 12:30:23 AM
The Planet NA-50 is a co-production with Antarki Models of Peru, Amaru Tincopa
and friends, who did the research and patterns, it's a nice kit. They've been
working on Douglas O-38 and 8A kits as well.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 09, 2019, 07:48:01 AM
The Planet NA-50 is a co-production with Antarki Models of Peru, Amaru Tincopa
and friends, who did the research and patterns, it's a nice kit. They've been
working on Douglas O-38 and 8A kits as well.

Great idea doing limited-edition kits in concert with local researchers!

Now, some more playing with the North American NA-50 ...

(Top NA-50 'Torito' ('Little Bull') fighter (No. 3-41) as delivered to Peru.

(Bottom NA-50M'Super Torito' post-WW2 upgrade and modernization mods.

This aircraft (No. 8-41) has an uprated 1,200 hp Wright R-1820-97 Cyclone and modified cowling taken from a USAAF-surplus C-60A Lodestar transport (although most replacement Cyclones originated with scrapped Lockheed Hudson IVAs scrapped in Western Canada. Since these replacement engines lacked interupter gears, fixed armament was moved to the outer wing panels to fire outside the propeller arc.

The most dramatic change is the lowered rear fuselage to accomodate a 'bubble' canopy taken from a scrapped Republic P-47D. Most such ex-USAAF equipment was exported as used 'Maquinaria Agrícola' loaded onto Peruvian 'banana boats' returning from Texan or Californian ports.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 10, 2019, 08:08:08 AM
Your Super Torito delights me to no end! Must be something about that canopy that makes it cute as a button.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 11, 2019, 06:38:25 AM
Very early NA-16 fighter and bomber versions offered for export in the '30s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 18, 2019, 07:07:00 AM
Okay ... that single-seat concept must be rendered! Cheers Jon :smiley:

But now more on the North American theme in a different direction ...
_________________________

RBC 'Bob' Noorduyn bet very well when he bought a production license for North American Aviation's NA-16. Between 1941 and 1945, Noorduyn Aviation Ltd, Cartierville, Quebec produced 2,800 Harvard IIB advanced trainers for the RCAF and RAF (with some going to Australia, New Zealand, and India). As soon as the War ended, Harvard production contracts were cancelled and Noorduyn shifted from NA-16 production to updated Norseman V bush planes.

Noorduyn Aviation also turned to providing spares for postwar Harvard users from the firm's plentiful stock. The company's final design was for a modification marketed as the Commonwealth Harvard. This involved re-engining Harvards with the Bristol Mercury radial - a scheme proven with a Harvard IIB bought back from the RCAF (ex-3326). This was comparatively simple since the original Wasp engine was of similar size and weight to the British Mercury. [1]

Bottom Former RCAF 3326 re-engined as the Commonwealth Harvard demonstrator. This aircraft retains its RCAF paintwork with civilian additions. The non-standard roundel was one of many 'maple leaf' variants proposed for the RCAF in the early postwar period.

The object of the Commonwealth Harvard was to reduce Lend-Lease payments. [2] Alas, neither the RCAF or other Commonwealth air forces were interested in purchasing Noorduyn's conversion kits for their Harvard fleets. In early 1946, Noorduyn Aviation and its rights to the NA-16 were acquired by Canadian Car & Foundry. CCF took over production of the Norseman V and would later develop the Harvard 4.

Bob Noorduyn moved on. It quickly became apparent that his old boss, Tony Fokker, left no room in Noorduyn's native Holland for competitors. However, an opportunity appeared in the Netherlands East Indies. Indonesian nationalists were in full revolt in 1946 and the Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger (ML-KNIL) was operating both the ex-USAAF UC-64A Norseman utility transport and AT-6 trainers - the US equivalent of the Noorduyn Harvard II.

As it happened, the RAAF had just retired its fleet of Lend-Lease UC-64As and Bob Noorduyn was able to convince the ML-KNIL brass in Batavia that they needed more Norsemans. In early 1946, the RAAF's surviving UC-64As were stored at RAAF Tocumwal, NSW. That was where the newly-established Noorduyn Aircraft Pty. would be established. [3] There, the new firm would restore surplus RAAF Norsemans as well as ex-USAAF UC-64As sourced from throughout the former South West Pacific theatre and India.

Approaches were also made to the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation in Victoria. Talks were begun to explore joint development possibilities for the Norseman, Harvard, and Wirraway. Several schemes seemed promising enough for further exporation but an unexpected development also arose. Before selling out to CCF, Noorduyn had investigated the possibility of a more powerful, armed Harvard derivative. [4] A CAC engineer, Alan Bolton, suggested that such an airframe could be readily created by combining components from the CA-14/CA-19 Boomerang with a Wirraway or Harvard airframe.

Top The partially completed 'Super Harvard' conversion at CAC facility, Fisherman's Bend, Vic., early 1947. This aircraft added a Boomerang centre section and engine to a Harvard airframe.

[To be continued ...]
___________________________________

[1] Perhaps surprisingly, the higher-powered 24.9 L Mercury had a slightly smaller diameter (51.5 in) than the 22.0 L R-1340 Wasp (51.75 in). However, the Mercury weighed 35 lbs more than the Wasp.

[2] This would be done by adapting Harvards to surplus British-made components where possible. The Wasp engines and other American-made equipment was to be returned to the US.

[3] For Noorduyn, Tocumwal was perfectly situated. Being on the banks of the Murray River, it would be ideal for testing refurbished Norseman aircraft on floats. Tocumwal also sat on the Victorian border, making it halfway between the existing Australian aviation manufacturers in Port Melbourne, Victoria and the Sydney area of New South Wales.

[4] In Noorduyn's original scheme it was planned that surplus Wright R-1820 Cyclone radials would replace the original R-1340 engines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 18, 2019, 08:35:21 AM
The Mercury looks like a natural on the Harvard.

Your yellow RCAF version is a real treat for the eyes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 19, 2019, 07:12:10 AM
The CAC/Noorduyn 'Super Harvard' concept was approved for use by the Militaire Luchtvaart van het Koninklijk Nederlands-Indisch Leger (ML-KNIL) as a light attack aircraft. It was intended that these aircraft would also act as lead-in trainers for the ML-KNIL's fighter fleet once stability had been re-established in the Netherland East Indies. In late June 1947, the first of 16 'Super Harvard' conversions arrived at the ML-KNIL's Depot Vliegtuigafdeling (Depot Squadron) at Vliegbasis Andir just south of Bandoeng in western Java. [1] From there, the first six 'Super Harvards' went to 16VB (16e vliegbasis Kali Djati, to the north of Bandoeng) to serve with the CVS (Centrale Vlieg School) alongside standard Noorduyn-built Harvard, the Canadian version of the North American AT-6, for advanced training from 1948 on Kalidjati.

Top ML-KNIL 'Super Harvard' of the CVS prior to be fitted with bomb racks. This aircraft was lost on 19 Dec 1949 during a bombing raid on the airfield Jogjakarta. [2] Hit by ground fire, B-411 came down outside the perimeter killing its pilot, Sgt. Albert Stoové. [3]

Work also progressed at Tocumwal, NSW, where Noorduyn Aircraft Pty. was rebuilding ex-RAAF Norseman utility transports for the ML-KNIL and sundry ex-USAAF UC-64As for other customers. Much of this consisted of straightforward repair and restoration work. One Norseman stood out, however. This ex-RCAF Mk.IV brought south by Bob Noorduyn was being rebuilt in an attempt to re-interest the RAAF in the Norseman.

Working with CAC, Noorduyn Aircraft Pty. incorporated as many Wirraway components as possible - including the complete CAC-built powerplant and cowling. The conversion process was completely successful but the RAAF was simply not interested in operating a 'bush plane'. The now non-standard 'Norse-away was then demilitarized and sold on the private market, operating with the Sydney-based aerial survey firm of Air Research Pty Ltd for many years.

Bottom The partially completed 'Norse-away' conversion at Noorduyn Aircraft Pty's Tocumwal facility.
___________________________________

[1] The partially disassembled airframes were shipped from Port Melbourne to the Port of Priok at Batavia. From there, the airframes were sent by rail to Vliegbasis Andir for assembly and flight testing.

[2] By then, B-411 had been painted in aanvallen camouflage and was wearing red-white-blue rosette roundels.

[3] AE Stoové's unwieldy proper rank was Reserve sergeant-kort-verband-vlieger der Militaire Luchtvaart KNIL.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 19, 2019, 08:11:17 AM
Those are great apophenia and I like that you expanded the Super Harvard concept for ML-KNIL service. Looks excellent in that scheme!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on January 19, 2019, 10:27:24 AM
Enjoyed your presentation of Harvard.  :smiley:   Gets one to contemplating Super Duper Harvard kitbash using F4U-4 engine-prop.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on January 19, 2019, 10:41:52 PM

Noorduyn makes me think of the Norseman, and of course (for me) its floaplane version ...  ;)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2019, 06:17:10 AM
Thanks folks!

finsrin Love your R-2800 Harvard concept. Maybe F4U main undercarriage too?

ericr Later on, I'll return to Noorduyn and the Norseman - floats included  ;D

But for now...
___________________________________

With the marginal success of the CAC/Noorduyn 'Super Harvard' - the ML-KNIL's purchase for military use in the Netherlands East Indies - Bob Noorduyn embarked upon a European sales tour for the type. The Armeé de l'Air  expressed some interest but France's STAé assessed the 'Super Harvard' as overpowered for the AdA's needs. The Portuguese air force was very keen on the 'Super Harvard' concept ... but lacked the funds for immediate procurement. The risky European sales junket was beginning to look like a bust.

Fortunately, sales of Norseman spares packages - especially in Scandanavia - looked set to make the entire trip worthwhile. A Finnish operator was interested in rebuilt Norsemans (with Edo float and ski gears) and the Royal Norwegian Air Force signed a parts support contract for its Norseman fleet. Sweden had just purchased the first two of three second-hand Norseman floatplanes so Stockholm was added to the list of cities to visit. As it happened, Sweden's air force - the Flygvapnet - saw no need for a support package for its handful of Tp 78 Norseman air ambulances. However, the Flygvapnet also operated a large fleet of surplus Noorduyn-built Harvards.

A spare parts supply contract was rapidly concluded but elements within the Flygvapnet were also interested in the 'Super Harvard' concept. Could, they wondered, the Harvard accommodate the complete powerplant from Sweden's FFVS J22 fighter aircraft? If so, the Flygvapnet could quickly introduce a potent lead-in trainer for its more advanced Saab J21 fighter which was just entering service. Bob Noorduyn saw no obstacle to adapting the existing 'Super Harvard' design to take the J22's SFA STWC-3G radial - a Swedish copy of the US Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp) engine.

The conversion work was to be undertaken at a government-owned Central Workshop - the Flygvapnet's CVM [1] using a Swedish-supplied Harvard IIB combined with a Boomerang centre section especially shipped out from Port Melbourne. As predicted, the engine conversion was comparatively simple. However, work was complicated but late add-on changes demanded by the Flygvapnet technical office - the TCF. [2] The first was the fitted of a new canopy based on that of the single-seat J22. Bob Noorduyn strongly recommended against this arrangement of hinged canopies. This was partly on aerodynamic grounds but was mainly an objection to the canopies being hinged in opposite directions - making a successful bail-out by the pilot highly doubtful. Nevertheless, the TCF insisted.

Another TCF insistence was upon greatly increased tail area to ensure good controllability. Once again, Noorduyn objected - believing the original tail to be more than adequate. Again over-ruled, CVM modified a P-51 Mustang vertical tailplane for mounting on the Harvard airframe. The effect, in Bob Noorduyn's opinion, was grotesque but work proceeded nonetheless on the 'SFA Harvard'. At this point, it was agreed that Noorduyn Aircraft Pty. had met its contractual obligations and an increasinly tense working relationship was brought to a close.

Top 'SFA Harvard' - the Swedish 'Super Harvard'

The 'SFA Harvard' was presented to Flygvapnet brass as an FFVS product to suggest a continuity with the in-service J22 fighter. As a ruse, it was rather transparent with the high command viewing development of this aircraft as the technical office overstepping its brief. Few would judge the awkward-looking 'Swedish Super Harvard' - to be any more successful than the ruse. It flew reasonably well but there was virtually no chance of the conversion being adopted as a standard advanced trainer. Instead, the 'SFA Harvard' prototype was taken into service as the sole SK16M, operating as a 'hack' with a J22 squadron until late 1952.

The next stop for Bob Noorduyn was Helsinki to meet with a Finnish civilian Norseman operator. While a contract was being negotiated for spares and support, the Noorduyn team was approached by representatives of the Finnish air force - the Ilmavoimat. This came as a surprise since the Ilmavoimat operated no Norseman and had just introduced the locally-design Vihuri military trainer. It seemed that the Mercury-powered Vihuri was very successful but surplus Harvards were available quite cheaply and the Finns were interested in a higher-performance trainer as well. Noorduyn was asked: Could the 'Super Harvard' be adapted to the smaller Pratt & Whitney Twin wasp Junior?

The Ilmavoimat held stocks of 825 hp R-1535-SB4G Twin wasp Junior radials which powered their obsolete Fokker D.XXI fighters. The Finn's question was easily answered - Noorduyn had considered the Twin wasp Junior as a possible alternative for his original Commonwealth Harvard proposal. [1] A scheme was quickly drawn up whereby those Finnish engines complete with their cowling and motor mounts would be adapted to the 'Super Harvard'. This resulted in weight balance problems which could not be solved simply by re-arranging internal equipment. Noorduyn's solution was to add a small extension to the rear fuselage monocoque section and move the vertical tailplane aft. That 'fix' simultaneously shift the c/g rearward while enhancing rudder 'authority'.

This was easily answered - Noorduyn had considered the Twin wasp Junior as a possible alternative for his original Commonwealth Harvard proposal [3] The Ilmavoimat held stocks of 825 hp R-1535-SB4G Twin wasp Junior radials A scheme was quickly drawn up whereby those engines complete with their cowling and motor mounts would be adapted to the 'Super Harvard'. This resulted in weight balance problems which could not be solved simply by re-arranging internal equipment. Noorduyn's solution was to add a small extension to the rear fuselage monocoque section and move the vertical tailplane aft. That 'fix' simultaneously shift the c/g rearward while enhancing rudder 'authority'.

Bottom First Valmet/Noorduyn 'Super Harvard' conversion with Twin wasp Junior with a temporary Finnish civilian registration.
 [And yeah, I know I got the temporary reg wrong ... 'Super Harvard' for the Faroe Islands' secret air force?  :P ]

[Fin]

___________________________________

[1] As the name suggests, the Centrala Flygverkstaden Malmslätt was located at Malmslätt just outside of Linköping.

[2] This office came under the Teknisk Chef Flygvapnet or Technical Director of the Flygvapnet.

[3] In that scheme, Noorduyn proposed sourcing surplus R-1535s from ex-RCAF Bolingbroke IVW recce-bomber/trainers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 22, 2019, 08:19:38 AM
It's a treat to see you continue with this theme, apophenia.

They're both great works of art and I like the Swedish trainer scheme as well as the way you rendered the re-registered civil one too.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2019, 04:50:47 AM
The next bit requires a bit of arm-waving by way of set-up ...

"Wingless Wonders" (Part 1)

Long ago, perttime posted links to a fellow-DeviantArt guy who calls himself Small Brown Dog. What caught my attention most was the earlier 'Wingless Wonders' - twin propeller fighters where conventional wing surfaces are obviated by electrical field on mass (EFM) effect via electrical lift generators. These so-called Tesla lift generators are driven by power take-offs from piston engines.

https://www.deviantart.com/small-brown-dog (https://www.deviantart.com/small-brown-dog)

(Edit: Added 'That was close' as an example of Small Brown Dog's concept and artwork.)

Sensibly, Small Brown Dog doesn't sweat the technical details too much. I don't quite understand those details which are provided, so I've just made up my own ...

All electrical lift generators are based on patents by Nikola Tesla - hence 'Tesla lift generators'. Tesla's theoretical work built on that of Farady, Maxwell, and Hertz. Heinrich Hertz showed that moving electromagnetic fields could break away from ordinary matter and propagate through the ether as independent electromagnetic waves carrying energy. [1] This led to the development of the Tesla coil oscillator but Nikola Tesla also extended electromagnetic fields theory to gravity. This culminated in Nikola Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity - the basis for our current understanding of Atomic Gravitational Fluctuation. [2]

All contemporary electrical lift generators were derived from the original Tesla-Westinghouse LG-369 model. As noted, all 'Tesla lift generators' fall under patents held by Nikola Tesla and/or by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company. So, worldwide production of these generators has produced an array of Tesla licensees which tend to develop their own distinct variations on the theme. [3]

In his first, practical generation of 'wingless' aircraft, Small Brown Dog produced an evolutionary series of Hawker Hound fighters (essentially, a RW Hurricane fitted with twin engines and lift generators mounted on stub wings). Once WW2 breaks out, the Hounds are opposed by German Messerschmitt Bf 219E-3 fighters of similar layout. He then moves on to latter aircraft - eg: his Supermarine Spectre - fighters with a very different layout.

All this got me to wondering about other aircraft in that first generation of 'Wingless Wonders'. What were the less-successful competitors to the Hawker Hound and the Messerschmitt Bf 219? What were other European powers and the American developing? I thought that I'd have a bash at some of those. Stay tuned ...
_______________________

[1] These electromagnetic waves come in both visible - light and invisible forms - radio waves, x-rays, and microwaves.

[2] That is, in Atomic Gravitational Fluctuation's atomic environmental structure (AES) sense.

[3] Small Brown Dog covers Tesla-Royce in the UK as well as Jumo and Daimler versions in Germany. (I'll get into other lift generator manufacturers in later posts.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2019, 04:52:18 AM
"Wingless Wonders" (Part 2)

The RAF companion that I've come up with is the Boulton-Paul Defiant 'multi-gun interceptor'. This was a controversial aircraft meant to focus on its turreted armament. Amongst Air Ministry 'purists', it was believed that a fixed, forward-firing armament should be avoided to allow the turret gunner to direct the course of combat. Others believed that the main armament should consist of fixed auto-cannons with the turret guns employed primarily for self-defence.

In the end, the fixed-gun proponents prevailed but no cannon type was agreed upon. Instead, the Defiant Mk.I featured four fixed, forward-firing 0.303-inch Browning guns - just like those in the turret. Although a larger, heavier airframe, the Defiant was propelled by the same Tesla-Royce powerplants as the single-seat Hawker Hound. It was believed that self-defence in the form of the hydraulic turret would make all the difference.

The Defiant began trials with the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) in the late summer of 1938. Minor changes were dictated to the airframe for production aircraft but, otherwise, the aircraft flew very well. The operational concept was another matter. The A&AEE quickly concluded that, in fighter-against-fighter combat, the Defiant would invariably fall victim to its single-seat opponent. The RAF immediately cancelled further Defiant orders and completed machines were directed to the north of Great Britain where they were less likely to encounter enemy fighters.

Top Defiant Mk.I of No.141 Squadron, RAF, flying out of Prestwick in July 1940

This complete program cancellation threatening, Boulton-Paul proposed turning to a revised layout (which had been originally proposed for the 'pure' turret fighter). The forward raised canopy would be suppressed by adopting a prone position in the nose for the pilot. This would provide the turret with a 360° traverse (less the propeller arcs). The four fixed Browning guns would be installed below the new pilot's position. This 'Prone-Defiant' concept was accepted for production as the Boulton-Paul Battler Mk.II. [1]

It was assumed that the operational approach for the Battler would be akin to that of the Defiant. In practice, however, a new approach was undertaken. When intercepting bombers, the Battler formation would generally come in from behind and slightly below. While the pilot aimed his guns at the engines, the turret gunner would focus on disabling the bomber's belly gunner. As the Battler passed beneath the bomber, the turret guns would be elevated to rack the underside. It was a simple approach and proved very successful during combat interceptions.

Bottom Boulton-Paul Battler Mk.IIA of No.254 Squadron, RAF Hornchurch, Essex in August 1940

________________

[1] For unrecorded reasons, the Mark sequence from the Defiant was retained for the Battler.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 25, 2019, 08:08:23 PM
Some similarities to here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5762.msg105760#msg105760)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 26, 2019, 06:00:28 AM
The Defiant is absolutely ripe for the treatment and you've come up with some magnificent permutations!

Best I could manage in plastic was a single-seat fighter kinda like a poor man's Hurricane.

Your talent and imagination never fail to amaze me apophenia.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 26, 2019, 07:19:13 AM
Thanks folks.

Brian: I always loved the look of the Boulton Paul P.94 (single seat Defiant) proposal. Now stick a Griffon onto that P.94 nose and who'd want a tatty old Hurricane  ;)

More to come on "Wingless Wonders". BTW, Small Brown Dog gives no indication of how these suckers were controlled. There's no ailerons and tail surface controls seem to be conventional. So, I've decided that roll-control was handled by applying asymmetrical power to the lift generators ... probably as plausible as anything else in this scenario  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 26, 2019, 08:14:34 PM
The Defiant is absolutely ripe for the treatment and you've come up with some magnificent permutations!

Best I could manage in plastic was a single-seat fighter kinda like a poor man's Hurricane.

I plan to do a RN FAA version with folding outer wings (containing a couple of machine guns), arrestor hook etc as a alternative to the Blackburn Roc
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 26, 2019, 10:11:18 PM
Not trying to hijack your thread but I thought you might like to see my poor man's Hurricane, the Boulton-Paul Defender.

The kit was an old 1/72 Airfix Defiant with a replacement vac canopy. Please forgive the photo quality. This was almost 12 years and 3 cameras ago.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 29, 2019, 07:59:13 AM
Brian Like your Boulton-Paul Defender (good name too). Is the aft portion of the canopy from P-39? (I played with a mid-engined Defiant concept based on the Airfix kit.
In my youth, my own less imaginative Airfix kit build saw plenty of action ... usually getting shot down my Hawk Bf 109G  ;)

I plan to do a RN FAA version with folding outer wings (containing a couple of machine guns), arrestor hook etc as a alternative to the Blackburn Roc

Now that would be a huge improvement for the FAA!  :D
________________________________________________

"Wingless Wonders" (Part 3)

Italian efforts to introduce electrical lift generators (ELG) into military service proved rather traumatic. With great fanfare, Benito Mussolini announced the Programma SE (Sollevamento Elettrico - the Italian air force's plan to re-align to the electrical field on mass (EFM) effect. Central to this Regia Aeronautica plan was the formation of Tesla-Italia at Guidonia and soonest possible service introduction of Volta lift generators. The Volta tipo I - meant for bombers and transport aircraft - and the Volta II for fighters proved utter failures - being both underpowered and unreliable. [1]

Italy quickly fell behind in aeronautical technology and was forced to license-build foreign ELG designs. To save face, Tesla-Italia retained the Volta name for these licensed lift generators. The Volta tipo III for large aircraft was licensed from GE-Westinghouse in the US. The Volta IV - aka 'Volta Caccia' - was a licensed copy of the British Tesla-Royce ELG for use in fighters and attack aircraft. Actual ELG production was farmed out to private industry. Castellini O.M. of Brescia [2] produced the Volta IIIs while Tesla-C.E.R. of Veneto [3] produced the Tesla-Royce Volta IV.

Progetto Italiani - the Fiat Aviazione C.R.38

Perhaps understandably, the renewed Italian efforts at electrical lift generator-equipped aircraft were of an experimental nature. The first ELG 'fighter' was the C.R.32S ('S' for Sperimentali or Experimental) which was simply a 'de-winged' Fiat C.R.32 fitted with imported British lift generators. The relative success of that venture led Fiat Aviazione designer Celestino Rosatelli to draught a fresh design - the C.R.38 four-gun fighter. The C.R.38 was powered by two stub wing-mounted 550 hp Fiat A.34 RC.30 23 litre liquid-cooled V-12s driving twin Volta Caccia ELGs. Initial armament was two 7.7 mm and two 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the nose-cone. In C.R.38 serie 2° fighters, armament standardized upon four of the heavier-calibre guns.

The Fiat C.R.38 was something of a compromise - with modern ELG drive being married to a conservative airframe design and 1930-vintage aero-engine technology. It was a reasonable attempt at a first ELG fighter but limited engine output [4] resulted in a marginal performance for the C.R.38. As a result, most operational Fiat CR.38 fighters had one - or sometimes two - of their 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns removed to reduce weight in hopes of augmenting performance. Despite the aircraft's obvious limitations, production was actually increased to replace obsolete winged fighters in Regia Aeronautica service as soon as feasible.

Top Fiat C.R.38 3° serie three-gunned fighter of 95ª Squadriglia in one of several Regia Aeronautica temperate schemes. Yellow recognition paint was introduced in June 1940 for the Corsican campaign.

A Second Arrow - the Aeronautico Macchi C.201 Saeta

It was obvious to Italian planners that the Regia Aeronautica would soon need fully-modern fighters to replace the Fiat C.R.38s. A design competition resulted in prototypes from Caproni-Vizola, IMAM, Fiat Aviazione, [5] and AerMacchi. The declared winner was the Macchi C.201 Saeta designed by Mario Castoldi. In contrast with the C.R.38, the Saeta featured a stressed-skinned aluminum structure and was powered by Fiat Motori's new A.81 - a 730 hp twin-row, 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. [6] The new fighter's nose-cone was detachable, making changes to armament simple on the production line - or even in the field. Standard armament was two 12.7 mm Breda machine guns and twin 20 mm Scotti cannons ... although this was sometimes reduced by squadron armourers to save weight.

Bottom A three-gunned Macchi C.201 of the 85ª Squadriglia in the Regia Aeronautica desert camouflage. Flying out of Bône on bomber escort duties, 'Bianco 2' was lost to an intercepting Bloch MB 154 of GC II/3 over Alger.

BTW: Images are based upon profiles by Zygmunt Szeremeta (C.R.32 and C.R.42), Stephen Mudgett (C.202), and an anonymous sideview of a 169ª Squadriglia C.200 (with, IIRC, a canopy borrowed from another C.200 by Teodor Liviu Morosanu).

________________

[1] Testing of pre-production Volta I lift generators would result in the death of the Il Duce's son, Bruno Mussolini.

[2] In full, this firm was Castellini Officine Meccaniche S.p.A. of Cazzago San Martino (Brescia).

[3] 'Tesla-C.E.R.' was properly the C.E.R. Gruppi Elettrogeni (Motori e Generatori) s.r.l.

[4] This output required the use of 94 octane petrol. In the field, such high-octane fuel was rarely available. So, 500 hp is probably more realistic for operational Fiat A.34 engines.

[5] The Fiat submission was the G.52 designed by Giuseppe Gabrielli. Like the winning Macchi C.201, the G.52 was powered by twin Fiat A.81 radials.

[6] The Fiat A.81 was a motore quadrato (square engine) with both bore and stroke measuring 140 mm.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 29, 2019, 09:40:21 AM
You've done a superb job rendering that famously complex Italian camo, apophenia!

I can only imagine the skill it must take to be able to do that so convincingly.

As for the provenance of the Defender's vac canopy, it was from Squadron for a Japanese fighter, can't remember which one. I took a lot of care free-handing the framing so I'm right chuffed you thought it was from a P-39. :D

Thanks for posting that fine artwork. Your updates are always a high point for me.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 30, 2019, 12:28:53 AM

Now that would be a huge improvement for the FAA!  :D

Feel free to profile it should you wish.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2019, 05:25:22 AM
Cheers Brian. The great thing about Italian camo is that there were so many varieties ... makes it harder to muck it up ;)

On your Defender's vac canopy, Squadron does a 1/72 vac canopy for the Ki-27. Wonder if your's was for a Nate?

Feel free to profile it should you wish.

I will have a bash at an FAA 'Sea Defiant' ... but I've got another two 'Wingless Wonders' to finish off first  >:(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 30, 2019, 05:30:14 AM
<snip>

On your Defender's vac canopy, Squadron does a 1/72 vac canopy for the Ki-27. Wonder if your's was for a Nate?

<snip>

Many thanks for jogging my addled memory, apophenia. It was indeed a Nate.

Now where did I leave my keys?
 :icon_crap:
Brian da Basher



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 01, 2019, 03:36:22 AM
"Wingless Wonders" (Part 4)

Not all military aircraft with electrical lift generators (ELG) followed the classic, twin-engined layout of the Hawker Hound. An early variation was the German Heinkel He 159 which used its single, large BMW engine to power twin outrigger ELGs via extension shafts. The advantages were obvious - reduced frontal area and eliminating the requirement for cross-shafting to deal with asymmetrical engine-out situations. The disadvantage was equally obvious - if the sole piston engine failed, down went the aircraft. [1]

Despite the disadvantages, two nations in particular pursued single-engined fighters with outrigger lift generators. In France, the conventional twin-engined Morane-Saulnier MS.510 C1 (and its replacement, the Bloch MB.154 C1) [2] was matched by a single-engined Dewoitine series. The HS 12Y-powered Dewoitine D.506 was more of a service trials aircraft than a truly operational fighter. With the general concept proven, Emile Dewoitine and his team returned to their drawing boards to prepare an entirely new design - the Dewoitine D.522 C1. [3]

The Dewoitine D.522 C1 mounted a huge Hispano-Suiza HS 16C piston engine. This one 16-cylinder engine was more than capable of driving both the propeller and shafts for the outrigger lift generators. [4] The 48.06 L HS 16C was mounted in the extreme nose with coolant radiators in the leading edges of the stub wings. The pilot sat well to the rear and his visibility could not be said to be anything but poor on landing. Manoeuvrability was also less that ideal That said, the Dewoitine D.522 C1 had a high top speed and was a quick climber. Although not a great fighter, the characteristics of the Dewoitine D.522 C1 made it an excellent interceptor.

A very similar design emerged in the Soviet Union. As behooves a new design team, the Mikoyan-Gurevitch OKB adopted a simple but daring layout for their ELG fighter. [5] Like the D.522 C1, the MiG-5 was powered by a single, huge inline piston engine - in this case the 46.66 L Mikulin AM-38EP V-12. [6] Power take-offs at the rear of the Mikulin drove geared shafts for the outrigger Elektrozavod ELG units. [7] A key difference from the French interceptor was that the MiG-5 mounted its entire armament in its nose - including a 23 mm motor cannon and two or three synchronized machine guns (with their number and calibre varying between MiG-5 sub-types).

BTW: The D.522 C1 is based upon a D.520 sideview by Cédric Chevalier, the MiG-5 on a MiG-3 sideview by Massimo Tessitori.
________________

[1] The outrigger stub wings did provide a modicum of lift but, in the event of a stopped piston engine of a single-engined ELG aircraft, a controlled crash was the best that could be hoped for.

[2] The MS.510 C1 was powered by twin 670 hp HS 12Xcrs V-12s driving Tesla-LAB ELGs. The later MB.154 C1 was slightly unusual in being powered by two 660 hp Gnome-Rhône 14M-6 Mars radial engines.

[3] The D.520 was an early concept abandoned in the development stage. The D.521 was outwardly similar to the D.522 C1 but, lacking all operational equipment, the D.521 acted purely as a drivetrain technology demonstrator.

[4] French fighter aircraft all had ELGs built by Tesla-LAB (Labinal S.a.) based at Blagnac (near Toulouse) with other plants at Charmeil, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes in central France, and a component-building arrangment with FACEJ (Forges et Ateliers de Construction Electriques de Jeumont) based at Jeumont on Belgian border. French bombers received lift generators built by a Westinghouse licensee - MESW (Matériel Electrique Schneider-Westinghouse S.a.),  based at Champagne Sur Seine (SE of Paris) with its drive systems facility at Étupes.

[5] This served MiG well. In the end, the overly-complex Polikarpov design simply could not be made service-ready.

[6] The prototype MiG-1 had been powered by a Mikulin AM-35EP. The MiG-3 was to have been a 'productionized' model of the MiG-1 but its development was overtaken by the more powerful MiG-5.

[7] The lift generators - known in Russian as Elektrodvigatel' dlya Aerodinamicheskogo Pod"yemnaya Sila - were made by Elektrozavod EAPS of Zaporozhye in the Ukrainian SSR.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 01, 2019, 04:20:29 AM
That's some outstanding work on the wingless D.522 & MiG, apophenia!

Your art is always a feast for the eyes.

Brian da Basher

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 01, 2019, 09:29:13 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 03, 2019, 04:30:33 AM
"Wingless Wonders" (Part 5)

With both the classic, twin-engined Hawker Hound type and the alternative layouts already reviewed, power take-offs (PTOs) from the rear of engines were required. Another approach to designing electrical lift generator (ELG) aircraft sought to eliminated PTOs altogether.

Potrzeba jest matką wynalazków - The Polish PZL P.21a [1]

When ELG combat aircraft were first successfully demonstrated, the Polish air force had just introduced a new winged fighter - the gull-winged PZL P.7 designed by  Zygmunt Puławski. A more powerful derivative - the P.11 - was in the works when Puławski was killed. However, replacement designer, Wsiewołod Jakimiuk, was directed to explore an ELG development instead.

Jakimiuk's P.21 retained the licensed Bristol Mercury radial engine intended for the cancelled PZL P.11c (as well as that winged fighter's rear fuselage. But there commonality ended. The Skoda-built Mercury sat 'backwards' in the fuselage driving an extension shaft linked to a splitter gearbox directly aft of the P.21's mid-placed stub wings' main spar. At the extremities of these stub wings were two more horizontal offset reduction gearboxes. [2] The rear shafts drove the usual pair of ELG units, the forward shafts drove twin fixed-pitch tractor propellers.

Top Prototype P.21c being prepared at PZL Warszawa-Okęcie with experimental four-gun armament

The PZL P.21 was considered a success, serving to prove its then-unorthodox arrangement concept. One disadvantage of this engine-forward layout was that it made the installation of heavier armament difficult. After experimenting with the four-gunned P.21c, the Polish air force finally solved the problem by simply increasing the calibre of the P.21's two-gun armament. [3] Although not a major concern when the P.21 first appeared, it likely explains why no other aircraft maker copied the PZL layout. However, there was obvious potential for improving the outboard, shaft-driven propeller arrangement.

A variation on the theme was the Russian Polikarpov TsKB-13 or I-17 which mounted its large, liquid-cooled M-34 engine behind the pilot - leaving the nose free for the installation of armament. In the case of the I-17 prototypes, this consisted of four to six rifle-calibre machine guns arranged on either side of the cockpit. Perhaps not the best gun placement but this arrangement did allow pilots a superlative view from their perch in the nose. Despite the promise of the design, Polikarpov OKB found it impossible to make the I-17 reliable enough for service use and, after multiple delays, the type was eclipsed in Soviet planning by the more conventional MiG-5 fighter.

Bell Aircraft Corporation and the P-39 Airacobra

While Polikarpov's former OKB was being dissolved, a new American firm was taking up the baton. Buffalo-based Bell Aircraft had produced the radical Model-1 Airacuda design. Bought by the US Army Air Corps at the YFM-1, this multi-use aircraft was powered by pusher engines - Allison V-1710s - driving forward-mounted electrical lift generators. The result was a clean and very fast aircraft ... which also had very touchy centre-of-lift issues in the air. It was quickly obvious that the layout concept was not a winner and that there would be no USAAC orders for Bell's Model-1 beyond the handful of YFM-1 trials aircraft. Larry Bell was in need of a new project.

The result was a single-engined fighter - the Bell Model-4 Airacobra. Bought for USAAC trials at the YP-39, the Airacobra generally followed the layout of the Russian I-17. An exception was its nose-mounted armament with the pilot's cockpit being positioned directly in front of the mid-mounted engine compartment. That engine was the new monster from Allison - the V-2280 V-16. This engine's driveshaft fed directly into splitter gearbox which, in turn, drove shaft to the extremeties of the low-set stub wings. There, horizontal offset reduction gearboxes fed the constant-speed three-bladed propellers and twin ELGs. The latter were new, small-diameter GE-Westinghouse units - the XLG-369-300 series. These ELGs were rather heavy but made up for it with reduced frontal area ... and, as it turned out, increased reliablity.

Bell had originally proposed a heavy fixed armament of twin 37 mm cannons and six .30-calibre machine guns. The USAAC felt that half that armament was adequate for the P-39's planned bomber-interception role. Before the production lines at Bell's Buffalo factory were started, the calibre of the trio machine guns was changed to .50-calibre. As a result, the P-39A was cancelled outright and contracts re-written for P-39Bs. The P-39C followed which standardized on six .50-calibre guns to simplify ammunition supply at the squadron level. Other Airacobra variants followed - the P-39D was a tactical reconnaissance fighter with cameras in its nose and two 'fifties' for self defence. The P-39F returned to cannon armament for its intended ground-attack role. [4] The P-39J was the definitive variant, introducing a higher-powered 1,820 hp V-2280-32 engine, four-bladed propellers, and a detachable nose-cone which allowed individual aircraft to be tailored to specific roles.

Bottom An operational Bell P-39F, identifiable by its taller vertical tail and rudder.

(fin)

________________

[1] The Polish version of "necessity is the mother of invention".

[2] The outboard offset gearboxes were fitted with built-in clutches and thrust blocks to allow the Mercury piston engine to warm up without driving either the ELGs or the propellers.

[3] A part of the fleet-wide P.21d upgrade was to trade the old 7,9 mm wz.34 machine guns for new wz.38 weapons firing 13,2 mm rounds.

[4] The XP-39E was to have tested alternative ELGs but was never built. The cancelled P-39G was intended to be a dedicated ground-attack type with increased cockpit armour, two 37 mm cannons and four .50-calibre guns. Instead, the P-39G gun fit became an armament option for the 'modular' P-39J nose.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 03, 2019, 05:35:01 AM
Wow I really like your Airacobra version, apophenia!

I've got to give you props for avoiding the P-39 cliche` of putting BFG right on the point.

Great stuff! I've never seen that famous early-war USAAF scheme done better!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on February 03, 2019, 08:24:22 AM
P-39D  :o  :-*

Anyone out there thinking kit-bash ?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2019, 04:40:48 AM
Thanks folks! This next one is for Greg ...
----------------

Boulton Paul's Single-Engined Turret Fighters - P.82 Defiant and Naval P.85

Air Ministry Specification F.9/35 was for a 2-seat, four-gunned turret fighter to replace RAF Demons. The winning submission was the Boulton Paul P.82 designed by a team led by chief engineer, JD North. As the Boulton Paul Defiant this aircraft would fly in prototype form in early August 1937. Meanwhile, the Air Ministry issued a second turret fighter specification - this time as a carrier-based aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm - on 31 December 1935.

For Air Ministry Specification O.30/35, John North's team draughted the Boulton Paul P.85. Clearly based upon the P.82
Defiant, the P.85 was offered with two engine options - the P.85A with a Bristol Hercules HE-1SM 14-cylinder radial, and the P.85B which retained the P.82's Rolls-Royce Merlin. [1] Model E or F V-12. Compared with the P.82, the rear fuselage was more finely tapered and a large but very low fin was fitted. Its naval role dictated other changes for the P.85. An obvious difference was a heavy-duty main undercarriage with retracted rearward into the wing centre section (a la the Fairey Battle). Both P.85A and P.85B were also offered with optional twin-floats replacing the retractable landplane undercarriage.

TopBoulton Paul P.85A - Hercules-powered naval turret fighter concept

Also meant to fill O.30/35 was Blackburn's B-25 Roc designed by GE Petty. Despite having a larger airframe and only 2/3rds the power of the P.85, [2] the Air Ministry selected the Roc to be the Navy's turret fighter. The Roc was seen as having near-complete commonality with the Blackburn Skua divebomber selected to fill AM Spec O.27/34. Ironically, Blackburn were going to be too busy with Skua and Botha production to build the Roc themselves. Instead, the Air Ministry ordered Boulton-Paul to complete detail design on the Roc and then produce these aircraft at their Wolverhampton factory. Thus, BP launched into simultaneous production of its Defiant, the Blackburn Roc, and their respective turrets. [3]

Boulton Paul Overworked - Blackburn's Roc Turret Fighter Undercapable

Understandably, many in officialdom were uneasy about the selection of the Blackburn Roc. The RAF was unhappy that production of the Roc by BP at Wolverhampton would delay deliveries of their Defiant. The Royal Navy was ill at ease because their turret fighter would be at least 85 mph slower than the RAF's Defiant. In October 1938, the Fifth Sea Lord, Sir Alexander Ramsay, recommended that the Roc programme be cancelled outright. Alas, by then, production was well underway at Wolverhampton and the first Roc (L3057) would fly before the end of December 1938. In the meantime, sensing a dud, BP began design work in April 1938 to convert Roc airframes to a target-towing role.

The RAF's concerns about delays were warranted. When war broke out in September 1939, Boulton Paul had delivered just a single production Defiant Mk.I (which went to the Air-Fighting Development Unit). Thirty-one of the promised 137 Rocs had been delivered to the FAA but their performance was as poor as had been feared. [4] At the same time, the RAF was getting cold feet about the Defiant. The Defiant airframe had proven a complete success with its flying performance even better than expected. However, enthusiasm for the entire turret fighter concept had waned by the Summer of 1939. With the outbreak of war, official support was withdrawn by the new Ministry of Aircraft Production. Neither the Defiant nor the Roc would be high-priority production types - which, in wartime, meant that Boulton Paul would face serious challenges sourcing parts and materials.

In early September 1939, the RAF decided to cut its losses and eliminate the Defiant from frontline service. Some interest was expressed in converting existing airframes to target tugs or advanced fighter trainers ... but such projects would have to take a backseat to combat types. Fortunately, the Admiralty took a stronger position. Accepting that the Roc represented a deadloss as a combat aircraft, the Royal Navy jumped at Boulton Paul's earlier suggestion of converting Rocs to the target towing role. After 31 September 1939, all Rocs were to be delivered 'turretless' to Fleet Requirements Units. [5] There, FRU ground crews could install target-tug components - target drogue containers, wind-driven winches, and new winch-operator's stations in the former turret location - in their new Roc TT. Mk.I airframes. Meanwhile, the Admiralty began negotiating with the RAF for the use of its now-surplus Defiant turret fighters - the Admirals sensing an opportunity to replace both its disappointing Roc turret fighters and supplement its Sea Gladiator biplane shipboard fighters.

Unbeknownst to the RAF, the Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment had already consulted with Boulton Paul about the feasibility of 'navalizing' surplus RAF Defiant Mk.Is. According to BP, not only was it practical, much of the design work had already been done for the P.85. One glitch in this scheme is that the RAF wished to retain its Defiants' Type A Mk.IID turrets for re-application to other aircraft. 'Pop' Hughes of BP's Armament Department suggested a simple swap instead. The Defiants could retain their turrets if the RAF was provided with the near-identical Type A Mk.IIB turrets from the FRU Rocs (either turret types' non-conductive inserts would need to be modified to suit future airframes in any case). Eager to have the Defiant debacle behind it, the RAF agree to transfer surplus Mk.Is to the Fleet Air Arm.

Sea Defiant - Boulton Paul's Turret Fighter Gets Its Sea Legs

Bureaucratically, the transfer of RAF Defiants to the Fleet Air Arm was handled through modification of an outstanding Air Ministry Specification. AM Spec N.8/39 had been written for a future Roc replacement. By adding "immediate availability" as a stipulation, N.8/39 could only be satisfied by transferred Defiants. But, of course, these ex-RAF Defiants were not Naval aircraft.

Fitted with A-frame arrestor hooks, ex-RAF Defiants became Sea Defiant Mk.I trainers. These aircraft were intended purely for crew familiarization flights and simulated deck-landing exercises. After a quick inspection by the A&AEE, the prototype Sea Defiant Mk.I went on to the Service Trials Unit at Lee-on-Solent in late October 1939. From there, the aircraft went on to No.769 FRU for deck-landing training. Surprisingly, the 'interim' Sea Defiant Mk.I did see frontline service. No.806 Squadron at Eastleigh had received six Sea Defiant Mk.Is for familiarization training by April 1940. Between 26 May and 04 June 1940, No.806 - operating from a forward base at Detling, Kent - flew active fighter sweeps covering the Dunkirk operations.

Bottom Boulton Paul Sea Defiant Mk.I of No.806 at Detling, Kent, May 1940

___________________________

[1] The P.85B would have had either a Merlin E or Merlin F fitted. Unlike the P.82 - which eventually had its coolant radiator move aft to beneath the turret, the P.85B retained the P.82's original under-nose position for the radiator.

[2] The Blackburn B-25 Roc was powered by a 890 hp Bristol Perseus XI 9-cylinder radial engine.

[3] This was along with components built under contract by BP for Blackburn, Fairey, and other aircraft manufacturers. Some help came from General Aircraft which was subcontracted to produce Roc rear fuselages and tails (as they also did for the Skua).

[4] The Roc actually handled beautifully but it was even slower than the Blackburn Skua which, itself, proved a disappointment in its secondary fleet fighter role.

[5] Besides target-towing, Rocs also proved useful in simulated divebombing attacks for RN anti-aircraft gunners.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 08, 2019, 05:36:48 AM
I really like the radial engine version but the one in that Fleet Air Arm scheme is pure eye-candy!
 :-*
Yum - yum!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 08, 2019, 05:37:41 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 08, 2019, 09:45:36 AM
Operational version is nice! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 10, 2019, 06:13:52 AM
Thanks folks! More radial-engined variants ...

Boulton Paul Turret Fighters Sea Defiant

A brief moment of glory, the 'interim' Sea Defiant Mk.Is returned to their more mundane training roles. The more thorough Sea Defiant Mk.IA conversions - performed by Cunliffe-Owen Aircraft - received catapult spools, arrestor hooks, collapsible-dinghy compartment, and full FAA radio equipment. With trials complete, the Sea Defiant Mk.IA became fully operational with No.803 Squadron in March 1940. At the same time, the Wolverhampton design office of Boulton Paul was hard at work with other variants.

It had been hoped that development of the Sea Defiant would largely be a matter of 'navalizing' Defiant airframes making their way down the Wolverhampton production lines. And that was, essentially, what the Sea Defiant Mk.IA was. However, it soon became clear that a fully 'navalized' Sea Defiant would entale the modification and incorporation of unassembled Defiant components rather than adaptation of major Defiant components. That left the Admiralty in possession of a number of nearly-completed Defiant airframes which it really didn't want. The hunt for alternative roles was on for these airframes.

Boulton Paul P.82DL - the Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV Deck-Landing Trainer

At an early stage of Defiant development, Boulton Paul had proposed a two-seat trainer variant. However, the RAF found Defiant handling so pleasant that trainers were deemed unnecessary. That was also the Royal Navy's experience of the flying characteristics of their Sea Defiants. However, 'landing on' was another matter. It wasn't that the Sea Defiant was especially difficult to deck-land - other than an overly 'bouncy' main undercarriage, it was rather tame - it was more that the Fleet Air Arm recognized the value of being 'talked down' by an instructor when approaching an aircraft carrier an unfamiliar airplane type. Thus was born the P.82DL deck-landing trainer.

The P.82DL Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV [2] was an adaptation of some of those unwanted Defiant airframes. Boulton Paul was given fairly straightforward instructions. These airframes were to have dual-controls installed under a transparent canopy for both student and instructor pilot. [1] The bigger challenge for Wolverhampton was that the Royal Navy could not spare high-value Merlin engines for use in trainers. Boulton Paul would have to find suitable, lower-value engines to replace the Merlin for its trainer variant. Two engines - both air-cooled - were considered. The Napier Dagger was appealling in that this H-24 engine would best match the fuselage profile of the Defiant fuselage. However, reports of reliability issues with the complex Dagger were beginning to filter through.

The Bristol Perseus radial was a more awkward fit on the slender Defiant fuselage. However, Boulton Paul had recent experience with this engine through its production of the Blackburn Roc turret fighter. Accordingly, the complete Roc - engine-bearers, cowlings, the lot - were trial-fitted on a semi-completed Defiant Mk.I. As expected, the finished conversion was a gawky-looking brute - with the scale of the large-diameter radial engine somehow exaggerated by the humped 'turtle-back' fairing behind the instructor's cockpit. Nevertheless, fitted with catapult spools and an arrestor hook, the resulting Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV did all that was expected of it. It was slow, it was ugly, but it landed-on just like a Merlin-powered Sea Defiant.

Top Fighting colours - an unmarked P.82DL Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV deck-landing trainer seen at RNAS Yeovilton in early 1941. Operational colours have been sprayed over the Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV's more usual trainer-yellow undersides livery. [3]

Also Ran - the Short Story of the Single-Seat Boulton Paul Porpoise

Mention of radial-engined Sea Defiants naturally raises the subject of the short-run P.82H Porpoise Mk.X single-seat fighter. Originally designated Sea Defiant Mk.X, the Porpoise was something of a lash-up. Developed in a very short time in the aftermath of the Norwegian campaign, the Porpoise was intended to provide a ready replacement for the FAA's out-dated Sea Gladiator biplane fighters. As envisioned, the P.82H combined the basic airframe of the Sea Defiant with the radial engine installation from Boulton Paul's P.85A submission to Air Ministry Specification O.30/35. [4] As design work progressed, the new Ministry of Aircraft Production expressed its wish that the complete Hercules 'power egg' from the Bristol Beaufighter be adopted to avoid duplication. In light of the short timeline demanded by the Admirals, this could be seen as advantageous ... but it would have dire consequences for the future of the P.82H Porpoise.

The Porpoise Mk.X made as much use of unaltered Sea Defiant components as was possible with the adoption of a radically-different engine type in a now single-seated aircraft. The wings, tailplane, and rear fuselages were virtually identical. The big radial engine dictated an entirely new, faired in forward fuselage. The centre fuselage was structurally similar to that of the Sea Defiant other than alterations for a single-seat cockpit. That Porpoise was book-ended fore and aft by two, large fuel tanks to provide the long range demanded by the FAA. It was a simple solution but it also pushed the cockpit far enough aft to reduce visibility when landing-on. In that, it excarebated visibility problems inherent in mounting a large radial engine on a slender fuselage.

To make matters worse, the Beaufighter-type engine installation insisted upon by MAP, placed an enormous carberettor intake directly in line with the pilot's forward view. Add to this the continued use of the early Sea Defiant's 'bouncy' main undercarriage, and the Porpoise was unlikely to win many fans amongst FAA pilots. By contrast, a rival single-seat carrier fighter - the American-made Grumman Martlet - had become extemely popular within the FAA. The Martlet II was almost as fast as the more-powerful Porpoise MK.X, could match its range, and was armed with heavier-calibre 0.5-inch machine guns. Perhaps more importantly, Lend-Lease Martlets relieved a manufacturing burden upon the UK. The writing was on the wall for Boulton Paul's Porpoise.

It was the need for Britain to provide fighter cover for the embattled island of Malta which would provide the Porpoise with its moment of glory ... an for the FAA to relieve itself of a somewhat embarassing 'asset'. The FAA's Porpoise Mk.X would be 'flown off' carriers to defend Malta. By agreement, the RAF would provide spares and support for the FAA fighters' Hercules engines. To save weight, the Porpoises were partially de-navalized - including having their arrestor hooks removed - and many were repainted in more locally-appropriate colour schemes. Porpoise pilots quickly learned how to 'mix it' with their opponents - using dives and zoom climbs rather than being drawn in to dog-fights. The Porpoise was judged the superior of all opposing Italian fighter types but FAA pilots had to use caution when engaging the German Bf 109s now appearing over Malta.

Bottom Boulton Paul Porpoise Mk.X of 'B' Flight, No. 809 Naval Air Squadron, Hal Far, Malta. 'Plucked' of her arrestor hook and other naval gear, 'Sea Pig' has been given a quick repaint and sports a few battle scars.
__________________

[1] In its original schemes for 2-seat trainers, Boulton Paul had opted for tandem open cockpit. The FAA found this unacceptable. Not only did it not adequately simulate operational conditions, it could also overly constrain operation of the trainer type in inclement weather.

[2] The out-of-sequence Mark for the Sea Defiant T.Mk.IV was the result of re-applying a Mark from a cancelled project - that of a fully new-production turreted Sea Defiant.

[3] This aircraft may have been on the strength of No.759 NAS, the Fleet Fighter School and aircraft pool. Alternatively, it may have simply been a visiting squadron hack or squadron commander's 'personal' aircraft.

[4] The P.85A was to have been powered by a Bristol Hercules HE-1SM. For the P.82H, this was changed to a more powerful 1,300 hp Hercules II engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 10, 2019, 08:12:34 AM
Those are great and the one in the desert scheme is really hot!

I'll get me coat.

Seriously sweet artwork and beats the stuffing out of those airplane books with color plates I was raised on.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 10, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
With the Porpoise you've almost designed a British F4U Corsair! :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 11, 2019, 12:56:41 PM
Albeit an underpowered one...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2019, 05:51:48 AM
Merlin-powered Sea Defiants - Boulton Paul Turretless Fighters

While 'recycling' already prepared Defiant components distracted Boulton Paul's design department, other Sea Defiant variants were proceeding down the Wolverhampton production lines. A comparatively simple derivative was the Sea Defiant Mk.III, a turretless 2-seater with its fixed armament concentrated in its wings. The Sea Defiant Mk.IIIAs were production line conversions of near completed Defiant Mk.I airframes. Production picked up with the new-production Sea Defiant Mk.IIIB model. Both Mk.III variants were powered by 1,080 hp Merlin VIII engines - the Royal Navy's version of the RAF Defiant Mk.I's Merlin III.

Initially, the turretless 2-seat Sea Defiants were seen as 'interim' fill-ins for the pending Fairey Fulmar fighter. This proved largely unnecessary as Fairey was able to prototype and begin building production-model Fulmars with impressive rapidity. By the time that Fulmar Mk.Is began entering FAA squadron service, the Sea Defiants were already proving their worth. Both 2-seat fighter types were powered by the same engine but the smaller Sea Defiant airframe gave the Boulton Paul fighter a speed and manoeurability edge over its Fairey competitor. On the deficit side, the Sea Defiant was marginally tricker to land-on and was - despite the huge centre fuselage tank installed on the Sea Defiant Mk.III - somewhat shorter ranged. [1] Another difference was in armament. While a Fulmar gunner could deploy his flexibly-mounted Vickers GO for self-defence, the Sea Defiant Mk.III's back-seater acted solely as an Observer/Navigator.

Top Sea Defiant Mk.IIIA of No.835 NAS while ashore at Lee-on-Solent. This squadron had been formed in late 1940 specifically to operate Boulton Paul's two-seat carrier fighter.

The Sea Defiant Mk.IV was to be a single production-line, 'modular' development capable of being completed as either a turret fighter or a turretless 2-seater. However, like the RAF before it, the FAA was beginning to question the utility of the turret fighter concept. In the end, the Sea Defiant Mk.IV was eclipsed by a more powerful and fully developed variant - the Sea Defiant Mk.V. Originally this variant was to have been named Pelorus in reference to an anticipated role as an FAA 'pathfinder'. However, the most important change was introduction of wing-folding for carrier operations - a single, vertical fold being incorporated immediately outboard of the centre section join.

Introducing wing-folding was disruptive at Courtauld's Factory in Wolverhampton which built the centre sections. However, wing-folding was introduced at the same time as a completely new main undercarriage for the Sea Defiant Mk.V. Although Lockheed had worked wonders in fixing the worst aspects of the original Defiant landing gear, Dowty elected to embark on a complete redesign based on the needs of a dedicated carrier fighter. This new main undercarriage had nothing in common with Dowty's original design, being essentially a scaled-down version of the beefy gear developed by Dowty for the RAF's hefty Hawker Typhoon fighter.

Otherwise, the Sea Defiant Mk.V was externally similar to the 'interim' Sea Defiant Mk.III, being distinguished primarily by its wing leading-edge radiators [2] and a raised pilot's canopy. A less visible change was the introduction of the 1,175 hp Merlin XII in the Sea Defiant Mk.VA. That variant retained the eight .303-inch Browning guns of the Mk.III but cannon armament was also planned from the outset. The Sea Defiant Mk.VB was to have a fixed armament of four 20 mm Oerlikons - this being a standard Royal Navy anti-aircraft cannon. However, few Mk.VBs were completed before the Admiralty decided to follow the RAF's lead in making the British Hispano the standard aircraft cannon. This led to the Sea Defiant Mk.VC, late production models of which were powered by the 1,280 hp Merlin XX engine.

Bottom The first Boulton Paul Sea Defiant Mk.VC - a cannon-armed prototype conversion of an early production Sea Defiant Mk.VA airframe. Note that the process of updating this aircraft's markings has yet to extend to its tail flashes.
__________________

[1] Maximum range for the Sea Defiant Mk.III was just over 650 miles flying at its most economical speed. By comparison, the Fairey Fulmar had a range of 780 miles.

[2]Moving the coolant radiators from the belly to the wing leading-edges was mainly done to address FAA concerns about the effects of the earlier, large belly 'bath' when ditching. An incidental benefit was being able to install a small, window in the belly for downward-viewing by the Observer.

As would later become apparent, the belly radiator created no addition dangers when ditching in the early-model Sea Defiants. Nevertheless, the Mk.Vs did gain a few knots through the reduced drag of their new radiator arrangement.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2019, 06:10:17 AM
Sea Defiants - Boulton Paul Turretless Fighters

Introducing wing-folding on the Sea Defiant Mk.V, many of the Fleet Air Arm's objections to the Boulton Paul 2-seat fighters were satisfied. Despite this, Royal Navy planners continued to view Sea Defiants as 'interim' aircraft serving while the FAA awaited the Fairey Fulmar. As such, there was every danger that Boulton Paul's only production design might yet be cancelled. Accordingly, JD North's Wolverhampton design team began draughting radically improved developments of the Sea Defiant.

Ironically the turretless Sea Defiant Mk.III and Mk.V were being built to contracts based upon the Air Ministry's Specification N.8/39 for turreted replacement for the Blackburn Roc. At the same time that N.8/39 was issued, another specification - N.9/39 - was issued for another 2-seat carrier fighter to replace the fixed-gun Fulmar in the future. N.9/39 revised as Operational Requirement 82/Specification N.5/40 was to produce a more advanced 2-seater the Fairey Firefly powered by the new Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12. There was little chance that any warmed-over Sea Defiant design would be able to match this new fighter from Fairey.

With this realization in front of them, John North's team turned their attention to single-seat naval fighters. The original scheme from the Boulton Paul Aircraft Department design office was the P.104 concept. The Napier Sabre powered P.104 was to have a deeper fuselage and widened wing centre section to accommodate larger wing leading edge radiators and a taller main undercarriage to clear the large-diameter, 4-bladed propeller. [1] The rear fuselage and tailplane were also redesigned - in a manner similar to the rival Blackburn Firebrand. And therein lay the problem. The FAA already had an entirely new Sabre-engined fighter in development. With its minimal commonality with the Sea Defiant, the P.104 was seen are have few advantages over the promising Firebrand.

As an alternative submission, North's team produced the P.110 - a more direct single-seat derivative of the Sea Defiant. Whereas the Porpoise had essentially been a single-seat, radial-engined development of the Sea Defiant airframe, the P.110 was a much more thorough redesign. The P.110 wings, rear fuselage, and tailplane were virtually unchanged from the late-production Sea Defiant Mk.VC, as the 1,280 hp Merlin XX engine. The key changes were in the shortened centre fuselage section which accommodated the single-seat cockpit. The cockpit canopy was now well-faired into the rear fuselage and a retractable tailwheel was adopted. Here, JD North et al had a single-seat aircraft which could be quickly introduced into production as the FAA's Boulton Paul Boudicca F.Mk.I carrier-borne fighter. [2]

Top Boulton Paul Boudicca F.Mk.I carrier fighter of 880 NAS ashore at Arbroath, 1943

Successive variants were the Boudicca F.Mk.II with a 1,470 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 55 powerplant; the Boudicca F.Mk.IV with low-altitude 1,645 hp Merlin 32 and 4-bladed propeller, and the Boudicca F.Mk.V which to take the Merlin 45, 46, 50, 50A, 55, or 56 with equal facility. [3] The introduction of the Boudicca F.Mk.II, allowed the FAA to transfer most of its short-range, 'interim' Supermarine Seafire fighters to shore-based squadrons. As Wolverhampton ramped up Boudicca production, the design department worked at improving its top-speed performance. The powerplant of choice was the larger Rolls-Royce Griffon - an engine for which the Royal Navy had priority. Accordingly single Boudicca F.Mk.IV was re-engined with a 1,730 hp Griffon IIB as used in the Fairey Firefly F.R.Mk.I.

The Boudicca Mk.X - as the Rolls-Royce Griffon-powered conversion was re-designated - could hit 385 mph at 13,500 feet. However, controllability had suffered. Not only was the Griffon much more powerful, it also turned in the opposite direction to that of the Merlin. For acceptable landing-on performance, production model Griffon-powered Boudicca fighters would require substantially larger fins and rudders. Such a tailplane was test-flown on a Boudicca F.Mk.I airframe. JD North also took the opportunity to introduce a new, 'sting' arrestor hook and revised retractable tailwheel. Once successfully test-flown, the entire rear fuselage and tailplane from this Mk.I conversion was transferred to the Boudicca Mk.X trials aircraft. The Griffon-powered Boudicca was now ready for production.


The first production-model Griffon-powered Boudicca was the F.Mk.XI powered by the same engine type as the Mk.X conversion. By early 1944, the F.Mk.XI had been surpassed by the Boudicca F.Mk.XIII fitted with a 1,735 hp Griffon III. [4] The Boudicca Mk.XIV mounted a 1,850 hp Griffon VI but was otherwise similar to the F.Mk.XII. The ultimate Griffon-powered Boudicca was the F.Mk.XV. This late-war variant introduced the 'bubble' canopy trialled on the Merlin-engined Boudicca F.Mk.III and a 5-bladed propeller - as well as well as slightly extended, squared-off wingtips with lengthened ailerons.

Bottom The prototype Boudicca F.Mk.XV (with one wing folded to show revised wing tip).

Development of several Boudicca variants was cut short by the end of the war. The Boudicca F.R.Mk.XVII was to be a Cunliffe-Owen produced recce-fighter version of the Wolverhampton-built F.Mk.XV. The Boudicca F.Mk.XIX was to introduce a four-cannon wing armament replacing the machine guns of earlier variants. [5]
__________________

[1] The RW Boulton Paul P.104 was actually a twin-boomed pusher fighter with a ground-attack emphasis.

[2] This decidedly non-nautical name originated from a brief flirtation with a joint RAF-FAA fighter project. The RAF saw this Griffon-powered, single-seat Defiant derivative as a backup for its troubled Hawker Typhoon programme. When it became apparent that Griffon engines would not be immediately available, the RAF lost interest. As a distinct Royal Navy project, what was to be the 'Sea Boudicca' dropped its nautical prefix.

[3] The Boudicca F.Mk.III was a prototype used to test an all-around vision 'bubble' canopy.

[4] The Boudicca F.R.Mk.XII was a fighter-reconnaissance proposal which was not produced.

[5] From the Boudicca F.Mk.V and all Griffon-engined Boudiccas, the quartet of 0.303-inch Browning machine guns was exchanged for a pair of 0.5-inch Brownings. From the Sea Defiant Mk.VC to the Boudicca F.Mk.XIII, the pair of British Hispano cannons remained largely unchanged. However, many Griffon-powered Boudiccas were armed with shorter-barrelled British Hispnao II cannons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 20, 2019, 08:35:44 AM
Boudicca is the perfect name for this wizard aircraft!

Both are outstanding artwork and pure eye-candy, but I think I favor the earlier Mk. I as I'm pretty old-school.

The Mk. XV looks like it could give the Tiffie a run for its money!

Great stuff and a feast for the eyes, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 21, 2019, 05:28:25 AM
Cheers Brian. I favour the Mk.I too ...
_____________________________

Carl recently posted a lovely vintage shot of a postwar RCAF Lancaster 10P long-range photographic aircraft. But my personal favorites were always the long-nosed Lancaster 14 conversions.

The wartime Lancaster B.Mk.XIV was, of course, to have been the RCAF's 'Far Eastern Bomber'. [1] Designed for both diurnal and nocturnal raids over the Japanese Home Islands, the Lancaster B.Mk.XIV were have a heavier defensive armament that the RCAF's Lanc B.Mk.Xs in the European Theatre. But the war with Japan ended before a single Lancaster B.Mk.XIV had been completed. Indeed, no true Lancaster B.Mk.XIV ever was completed.

After the war, Victory Aircraft convinced the Canadian Government to accept hybrid Lancaster airframes adapted for specialist roles. Generally, these airframes combined Lancaster B.Mk.XIV components - forward fuselages and extended outer wings - with the powerplants, [2] centre- and rear-fuselages of near-complete Lancaster B.Mk.Xs. Lancaster Mk.14s hybrids were adapted for two major roles - Photographic (Lancaster 14P) and Arctic Reconnaissance (Lancaster 14AR).

Over time and allowing for attrition, the Lancaster 14Ps were all replaced by more plentiful Lancaster 10 airframes. Survivors in turn, were rebuilt to Lancaster 15AR standards to join their compatriots flying NORPAT Arctic sovereignty patrols until the last 15AR was struck-off in the Autumn of 1956.

___________________________

[1] Initially, the role was to be assigned to the Lincoln XV (originally dubbed Lancaster XV). Victory Aircraft designers then proposed that similar performance could be gleaned though a 'least-mod' Lancaster variant - their B.Mk.XIV design. As this concept evolved, the cockpit was moved forward and down - now sitting flush with the top line of the fuselage. This arrangement improved crew visibility but, more importantly, allowed for a second dorsal turret to be installed in the former navigator's position. Both dorsal turrets were Martin 250/CEs armed with 0.50-inch Browning guns (tail and belly turrets were to be sources from Convair).

[2] The Lancaster B.Mk.XIV was to have been powered by 1,750 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 68s in annular cowlings (à la the Lancaster VI). However, the Lancaster 14 hybrids received the same 1,620 Packard Merlin 224s as late-production Lancaster B.Mk.X bombers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 21, 2019, 05:38:25 AM
Now that's some serious photo voodoo, apophenia!

Just when I think I couldn't be more impressed you come up with this beauty!

The scheme pulls it all together for me. Yet more proof (as if any were needed) that few things spice up an aircraft like those maple leafs!

Your work is so convincing I'm sure you could tell people this photo was from an Aircraft in Action book and they'd never doubt it.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on February 21, 2019, 06:34:38 AM
Photoshop Expert Level: Unlocked!

Wow Mr. A. I never would have considered a Lancaster with an inline nose. This is so cool!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on February 21, 2019, 10:03:48 AM
Photoshop Expert Level: Unlocked!

Wow Mr. A. I never would have considered a Lancaster with an inline nose. This is so cool!

seconded
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 21, 2019, 04:04:27 PM
other Sea Defiant variants were proceeding down the Wolverhampton production lines.

Ha!  Strange coincidence.  I was actually in Wolverhampton when I read this.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 23, 2019, 07:49:32 AM
Thanks folks  :D

Ha!  Strange coincidence.  I was actually in Wolverhampton when I read this.

Heh heh. Anywhere near GE Aviation Systems (ex-Smiths Aerospace)? Apparently, they are still in the expanded 1937 BP factory building.

Now moving on to a series of Macchi projects. Some speculation/whiffery involved, although this first one is based on contemporary Aer.Macchi drawings...

Progetto n.24 - Origins of the Aer Macchi C.202 Fighter

Ing. Mario Castoldi began work on progetto n.24 for a nuovo caccia monoplano in 1935. This initial design concepts hinted at the future C.200 [i[Saetta[/i] fighter but had a range of detail differences. Most obvious was that progetto n.24 was defined as a "caccia C.200 con motore FIAT A80" - the Fiat A.80 being a big, twin-row, 18-cylinder radial engine. [1]

The progetto n.24's wing appears to be very close to what would ultimately be adopted for the final C.200 design phase, emerging as the prototype Macchi C.200. However, compared with that of the built prototype, the main landing gear in the initial design phase was much stouter - somewhat resembling the undercarriage of the much heavier Boulton Paul [i[Defiant[/i]. The tailwheel was to be neatly enclosed in a fairing beneath the rudder - rather like contemporary Savoia-Marchetti designs or the slightly later Fiat CR.42 biplane.

To facilitate pilot view as dictated by the Regia Aeronautica, the early-phase progetto n.24 featured the familiar Saetta 'hump' on its forward fuselage. However, unlike the built C.200, that 'hump' did not contain the fighter's fixed gun armament. Armament for the early design phase progetto n.24 was to be four 7.7 mm machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Two of these guns sat along fuselage sides on the aircraft's centre line. Two more machine guns would be mounted in the wing roots. Perhaps the Ministero dell'Aeronautica had not yet specified the use of twin 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns? [2]

Other differences for the initial-phase progetto n.24 design were in the taper of the fuselage and the exact  configuration of the tailplane. Compared with the first production C.200s, the early progetto n.24 cockpit canopy was very low-slung and cramped-appearing. Despite this constricted appearance, the pilot was seated high in the fuselage as in the built C.200. The cramped sense of this canopy was intensified in the two-seat (Biposto) variant - the first Macchi C.201 model - a late-stage, initial design phase derivative.

The C.201 Biposto version employed a near-identical airframe with a second seat behind that of the pilot. This second seat normally faced forward but could rotate, facing aft, to man a single, flexible machine gun on a retractable mount. [3] To facilitate this, the rearmost canopy section formed a quarter hemisphere which could swing inside the canopy to open the gunner's position. [4] A puzzle remains about the intended role of this C.201 Biposto type. The low-set rear seat probably eliminates a 2-seat trainer role. Fast reconnaissance is a possibility ... although there are no signs of camera mounts or downward-looking observation windows. [5] Since the Biposto retained the single-seater's full forward-firing gun armament, the most probable intended role was as a heavy-fighter.

From Ur Macchi Progetto n.24 to Production C.202 Saetta

In October 1936, the competing Fiat G.50 and IMAM Ro.51 fighter designs were revealed in Milan at the 2° Salone Internazionale dell'Aeronautica. Both rival designs were powered the smaller Fiat A.74 radial intended specifically for fighters. Clearly, Aeronautica Macchi's progetto n.24 with its bulky 18-cylinder A.80 radial was not going to be competitive in the upcoming Regia Aeronautica fighter contest. A major design revision was needed. First to go was the 751 kg Fiat A.80 powerplant. In its place went the 590 kg, 14-cylinder Fiat A.74 of much smaller diameter. [6]

Since the Fiat A.74 and A.80 were closely related engines, longer engine mounts to restore the centre of gravity should have done the job. However, Ing. Castoldi et al evidently took the opportunity for a major do-over. By the time that the prototype Macchi C.200 (M.M.336) was rolled out in late December 1937, its appearance had been quite altered. The familiar wing remained but now fitted with a more delicate-looking main undercarriage. The tailplane was completely revised - the fin becoming more gracile and the horizontal tail being move forward. The latter allowed the tailwheel to be made fully retractable (although that feature would disappear early in the production schedule). The main armament was moved up into the forward fuselage 'hump' and the rear fuselage shape was refined.

_______________________

[1] The Fiat A.80 was designed by Ing. Tranquillo Zerbi. In its A.80 RC.41 (as here) and RC.42 forms, this engine was to produce a maximum power of 1,000 hp (the later A.80 RC.20 hoping to produce 1,200 hp).

[2] Alternatively, Ing. Castoldi had concluded - likely correctly - that the four, rifle-calibre guns would be a more reliable armament producing a greater weight of fire.

[3] Drawings show this quarter hemisphere divided into three, framed sections. Its not clear to me whether this simply reflects contemporary limits in Italian acrylic-moulding technique or, alternatively, if these sections represent three separate segments which retract armadillo-style.

[4] Here, I've shown a hypothetical, short-barrelled 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun. However, it is quite possible that the Aer Macchi drawings were meant to show a 12.7 mm Breda as the flexible gun.

[5] AFAIK, no prior thought was given to photo-recce Saettas until the 1941 mod with a AC.81 camera fuselage-mounted for use over Malta. Later, 'Avia' cine-cameras were also mounted in nine C.200 airframes.

[6] The two engine types were very closely related. The A.74 was a 1935 evolution (by Ing. Zerbi and Prof. Fessia) of the licensed Pratt & Whitney R-1535 14-cylinder radial. The Fiat A.80 (from the same designers) was an 18-cylinder development using as many A.74 components as practical - pistons, valves, heads, etc. As a result, the two engine types shared the same 140 mm bore. The 1.195 m diameter Fiat A.74 diameter was said to "run like a sewing machine". Alas, the larger-diameter A.80 would develop a much less enviable reputation.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 23, 2019, 09:09:35 AM
I really like your Macchis, apophenia!

They're both pure eye-candy but there's something about that cool rear canopy on the C.201 Biposto that's very appealing.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 24, 2019, 02:48:48 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 26, 2019, 05:05:14 AM
I'm gonna do these Macchis in numerical sequence ...

Real World Macchi C.200 Saetta Variants and Derivatives

There were a range of RW Macchi C.200 Saetta variants and proposals. Most represented minor changes that are difficult to distinguish - such as the late Breda-built C.200 A.2 (XXI serie) and C.200 B.2 (solo bordo di attacco). Others were role-change upgrades like the C.200 b.a. (Bombe Alari A.S.)  fighter-bomber mod. [1]

Others were completed as prototype conversions - such as the MC.200/R (M.M.4593, I serie) with a boosted Fiat A.74 engine, and the 1942 C.200 Bis (M.M.8191, XXI serie) fitted with a larger-diameter Piaggio P.XIX RC.35 radial producing 1,180 hp at 3,500 metres. [2]

Then there were the Macchi C.200 proposals which remained unbuilt for various reasons. Some were simple, like proposed alternative engine sub-types to replace the standard Fiat A.74 RC.38 (more on that below). Most intriguing of the unbuilt proposals was the C.200 Idro floatplane of mid-1937. The floats are described as similar to those of the MC.72 racer ... but whether that simply means twin pontoons or describes the actual shape, I don't know. [3]

A fairly straightforward concept was a 1940 proposal was for a C.200 D.C. (Doppio Comando) - a dual-control trainer to familiarize fighter pilots with fast monoplane handling. The Regia Aeronautica rejected this proposal - probably because, by April 1940, the rival Fiat G.50B 2-seat trainer was already flying. I have no idea of exactly how Macchi's C.200 D.C. concept would have looked. So, I roughly modelled my C.200 D.C. layout after the unarmed G.50B.

The alternative Fiat A.74 sub-types considered were the 770 hp Fiat A.74 RC.42 and the A.74 RC.50. But, AFAIK, neither A.74 sub-type was ever actually installed in a C.200 airframe. Ultimately, the solution to the C.200's rather modest top speed performance was adding horsepower. Fiat had anticipated this and developed its 1,000 hp A.76 14-cylinder radial to replace the lower-powered A.74. The A.76 was intended for both the Macchi C.201 [4] and the Fiat G.52. [5] I don't have a lot of detail about the A.76 but tend to think of it as being an R-1830 Twin Wasp analogue whereas the A.74 had been an R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior development. Unfortunately for Macchi, the A.76 proved far from reliable and Fiat Motori had enough on its plate without taking on more grief.

But what if Fiat had the staff and time to work the bugs out of the A.76? The Macchi C.201 had been designed around the 1,000 hp A.74 R.C.40 - so, over the C.200's A.74 R.C.38, an extra 130 hp rated 200 metres higher. With an increase in weight of less than 140 lbs, this would produce a top speed which was 30 mph higher. Not quite in the same category as the later C.202 Folgore, but still a worthwhile improvement over the original C.200. The C.201 airframe was also somewhat refined - losing some of the Saetta's forward fuselage 'hump' and gaining a new, lower-profile sliding canopy for the cockpit. Armament remained the same at the C.200 - two synchronized 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns with 370 rounds of ammunition available to each.

My what-if production C.201 is a II serie machine. These would be most readily distinguished from I serie aircraft by their C.202 Folgore-style tailwheels and fairings. Other II serie standard features such as propeller spinners and Africa Settentrionale dust filters were often retrofitted to I serie C.201s confusing identification. The III serie introduced C.202 wings (with extra inboard fuel tanks and a single 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun in each wing panel). With the IV serie, the C.201 received mounting points for wing bomb racks to allow an optional cacciabombardiere role.

___________________________

[1] With Bombe Alari meaning 'Bomb Wings' and 'A.S.' being for Africa Settentrionale (North Africa). Such fighter-bomber adaptations were known generically as cacciabombardiere ... as opposed to standard configuration Caccia Intercettori.

[2] Other than altitude rating, this engine would have been similar to the Piaggio P.XIX RC.40 radial of the Reggiane Re.2002 Ariete. But, I have no way of knowing whether the cowlings used would be similar in appearance. Anyone know?

[3] Reportedly, there is an Aer.Macchi profile drawing of the C.200 Idro dated 03 August 1937. Alas, I have not seen this drawing.

[4] The 1938 C.201 concept bore no relation at all to Macchi's 1935 project with the same designation - the C.201 two-seat Biposto version of the progetto n.24 design phase.

[5] Some sources list the planned G.52 powerplant as a Fiat A.75 but seems improbable. Both the G.52 and the Macchi C.201 were declared winners of the 1938 Caccia I (Intercettore) contest which was part of the Regia Aeronautica's much larger Programma R expansion plan. Other contenders had been the Reggiane Re.2000, Breda Ba.100, Nardi FN.530 light fighter, AVIS CO.2 gull-wing monoplane, and Caproni Ca.175 biplane.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 26, 2019, 07:23:38 AM
I just love it when you get going with a great theme like this, apophenia!

Those are some very credible upgrades indeed! It sure seems ready for a fight!

Once again, your rendering of that famous Italian "sand & spinach" is outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2019, 05:53:42 AM
Thanks Brian. I can't claim credit for the camo - my operational C.201 was modified from someone else's C.200 (alas, an anonymous online find) ...

Macchi C.202 Preliminare

As with the ur-Macchi C.200 and 2-seat C.201, Aer.Macchi produced a preliminary design designated C.202 as well. While the late 1935 C.200 was a stage in the design process leading to the production Saetta, the C.202 concept dating from February 1936 bore no relationship to the eventual production-model Macchi C.202. For the earlier C.202 concept, I have only a written description by Giovanni Massimello to go by.

This early C.202 was to be powered by the same Fiat A.80 engine as the preliminary C.200 and C.201 design. As described by Massimello, the early C.202 concept "was a preliminary design for a monoplane with a forward-placed cockpit, similar to that of the Breda Ba.65 but this line was not pursued." [1] What was Mario Castoldi thinking?!

Two possible scenarios present themselves. One is that this first C.202 incarnation was intended to produce a comparatively long-range fighter with a large fuel tank placed close to the centre-of-gravity. The second (albeit, less likely) scenario is that Castoldi was trying to satisfy Regia Aeronautica requirements for a superior pilot's view while still avoiding the overly humped forward fuselage which emerged with the built C.200 Saetta.

From Massimello's description, I've conjured up two possible early C.202 profiles. Although the dating for the first C.202 concept is slightly later, [2] the first sideview is based on the airframe illustrated above for the 1935 C.200 and C.201 concepts. The second sideview is based on the C.200 Saetta prototype as built later in 1937 ... although that seems rather less plausible. [3] Neither possibility presents much of a looker ;p

(Personally, I find the built Macchi C.202 to be one of the most attractive of WW2 fighter designs. So, I'm extremely grateful that the clunky, 'cab-forward' ur-C.202 never went anywhere!)

___________________________

[1] "Si trattava infatti del disegno preliminare di un monoplano col posto di pilotaggio moloto avanzato, simile al Ba.65, che non aveva avuto seguito." In Aer.Macchi C.203: un intruso tra i caccia della serie '200Ali Antiche (Torino), nº 109, GAVS Torino, p. 29-30

http://www.avia-it.com/act/la_tecnica/la_tecnica_di_ieri/Tecnica_ieri_2016/Seg_art_apr_16/Aer_%20Macchi_C203_%20un_intruso_tra_i_caccia_della_serie_200.pdf (http://www.avia-it.com/act/la_tecnica/la_tecnica_di_ieri/Tecnica_ieri_2016/Seg_art_apr_16/Aer_%20Macchi_C203_%20un_intruso_tra_i_caccia_della_serie_200.pdf)

[2] Although the preliminary C.200/C.201 and C.202 are only separated by a few months, it's not clear whether Aeronautica Macchi or Ing. Castoldi considered this 'cab-forward' C.202 concept to be a part of the initial-phase progetto n.24 designs.

[3] Both of these sideviews are based upon an early-production C.200 profile done by the great Teodor Liviu Morosanu.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 28, 2019, 05:55:39 AM
Macchi 'C.203' - What-If Macchi C.202 Derivatives

I don't know of any unbuilt developments of the Macchi C.202 other than the proposed Isotta-Fraschini L.121-powered C.204 (coming later). I have no doubt that there were unbuilt developments of the C.202 put forward, I just don't know what they were. There was, of course, the Macchi C.202bis concept. But that's different ... by the time that it was built, the C.202bis had been redesignated Macchi C.205V Veltro.

In his article, Aer.Macchi C.203: un intruso tra i caccia della serie '200 (Aer.Macchi C.203: an intruder amongst the '200 series fighters), author Giovanni Massimello unveils a little-known unbuilt project - the Macchi C.203. However, before the 'big reveal', Massimello acknowledges that some may have been speculating about this previously 'missing' C.203 designation.

"It was conceivable to expect an evolution of the C.202 to emerge. Perhaps with a new fuselage redesigned to house a 20 mm Mauser gun firing through the Daimler Benz 601A in imitation of the Messerschmitt Bf 109F series? There was a pressing insistence coming from Mussolini for a so-called "caccia-cannone". However, in contrast with the German fighter, such a cannon-fighter conversion was not readily achievable on the C.202 due to unsolvable centre of gravity issues. Accordingly, a redesign project would be needed along with new assembly lines. Difficult to accomplish in a short time, so nothing came of the push for a caccia-cannone."

As a what-if, a motore-cannone development of the Macchi C.202 seems like a comparatively simple proposition. If centre-of-gravity was the critical issue, the 'C.203' caccia-cannone could incorporate a new cannon bay which also served to extend the fuselage slightly rearward. For my 'C.203' cannon-fighter, I chose a domestic Scotti 20 mm auto-cannon rather than Massimello's German "20 mm Mauser gun". [1]

"Or, perhaps, we could imagine the '203 as the first attempt at a project to replace the DB 601A of the '202 with some more powerful powerplant?"

My first thought here was a Reggiane RE 103 'M-18' engine (as in the Reggiane Re 2004 project). But that inverted W-18 powerplant doesn't appear until 1943. So, instead, I settled on a developed version of the Isotta-Fraschini L.122. In the RW, the L.122 was an inverted development of Isotta-Fraschini's L.121 upright V-12 engine. For my whif upgraded L.122bis, I'm imagining the Ministero dell'Aeronautica assigning L.122 aspiration to Alfa Romeo - hence the Daimler Benz-style side-draught supercharger intake. [2] The tricky bit would be making the I-F L.122bis more powerful than the 1,175 hp DB 601A and licensed Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 R.C.41-I!

________________________

[1] Alfredo Scotti of Brescia did design a 20 mm aircraft gun. Like Scotti's 7.7 mm machine guns which were also used by the Regia Aeronautica, the 20 mm guns were actually produced by Isotta-Fraschini.

[2] The alternative would have been to forego fuel injection and use a down-draught carburettor with an above-cowling intake akin to that of the US Allison V-12. The DB arrangement seemed more elegant and easily accomodated a dust filter into the intake.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on February 28, 2019, 07:09:53 AM
I'm enjoying these Macchis enormously.

Those are some superb "sand & spinach" variations. Your talent knows no bounds, apophenia!

A veritable feast for the eyes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 01, 2019, 02:47:55 AM
I really like the inline Macchis.  Any chance of one of these (or even a radial engined variant) in service on the Carrier Aquila?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 01, 2019, 06:19:31 AM
I really like the inline Macchis.  Any chance of one of these (or even a radial engined variant) in service on the Carrier Aquila?

I like it! May have to circle around on that one. Meanwhile ...

Ricognizione Veloce - The Macchi C.203 Floatplane Project

The Macchi C.203 was an unbuilt project for a twin-engined seaplane dating to 1937. Ing. Castoldi designed with twin-float aircraft for a 1937 Ministero dell'Aeronautica competition for a idrovolante da ricognizione veloce (fast reconnaissance seaplane) to replace the dated CRDA Cant Z.501 flying boat. The C.203 was to be a relatively sleek, tandem-seater powered by two radial engines. In general appearance, the fuselage with its twin, endplate tails, resembles a contemporary French landplane reconnaissance type - the Bloch MB.170.

As in the Bloch design, the C.203's pilot was seated well forward with underside nose glazings for observation. The C.203 canopy glazing was a lengthy affair terminating in a semi-enclosed dorsal gun position. Fixed armament consisted of three machine guns - that dorsal gun, a ventral gun firing through a hatch, and a fixed gun in the upper nose. A crew of two or three would be carried. Wingspan would be 20.90 m, total length was to be 14.34 m. According to Giovanni Massimello, power was likely to be provided by twin Fiat A.74 radials. [1]

Massimello also notes that, while Castoldi is very experienced in seaplane design, the C.203 layout doesn't compare all that well with the winning Fiat-CMASA R.S.14 submission. [2] The later featured a well-glazed nose cap and side-by-side seating for its flight crew. Defensive armament consisted of a 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun in a 360° traverse Lanciani Delta turret and twin 7.7 mm machine guns. Powered by two Fiat A.74, the R.S.14 airframe was slightly smaller but - with a crew of 4 to 5 - the CMASA design was likely heavier than the C.203 would have been. That said, the Regia Aeronautica probably received the superior of the two designs.

Illustrated here is my take on the C.203 floatplane as designed by Castoldi (bottom). [3] But I've also included a completely speculative sideview of what the C.203 might have looked like had the nose been revised to better suit the fast reconnaissance role (top). Just for fun, I've added to the mix an evolutionary path parallel to that of the experimental land-based Fiat-CMASA A.S.14 attack aircraft derived from R.S.14 floatplane. Then, I've re-engined this fictional 'C.203bis' with twin 1,025 hp Piaggio XIbis R.C.40 radials as a more powerful prototype for the equally-ficticious 'C.203B'.

________________________

[1] It is equally possible that Castoldi intended the powerplants to be the larger Fiat A.80 radial - which were first considered for the C.200.

[2] This critique could also applied to the late-arriving CRDA Cant Z.515. That design shared the C.203's twin tails but featured the R.S.14's glazed nose cap, side-by-side seating, and Isotta-Fraschini Lanciani turret.

[3] I've shown the prototype C.203 with 'smooth' cowlings (as opposed to the C.200's individual rocker covers) and a Piaggio P1001 propeller hub. However, the early-production C.200s featured Fiat/Hamilton-Standard 34D-1 constant-speed propellers (on the first 24 or 32 C.200 production airframes, sources varying).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 01, 2019, 10:30:32 AM
Having once interned, once upon a time, at AerMacchi (summer of 1972), I am really enjoying these variations.  'twill be interesting to see if Macchi developed a design using the Zeta engine much as the Re.2004 and Caproni-Vizzoli F.6Z did.

Historical tidbit: Up until the new plant was built in Venegono, all Macchi land planes were built at their Varese plant, which is now in the middle of town, and had to be broken down and trucked to Venegono for re-assembly and flight testing.  Their seaplanes were built at a facility right on Lago de Varese (literally "Lake of Varese"); this facility now builds Harley-Davidsons for which Macchi holds a license (not sure if it's just for Italy or all of Europe).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on March 01, 2019, 05:05:37 PM

Lovely floatplane !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 02, 2019, 08:38:59 AM

Lovely floatplane !

Floatplane is my favorite flavor, too!

Well done, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 03, 2019, 10:28:17 AM
Going to extend this post-war with Merlin-powered versions of the MC.202/205V airframe or perhaps a hot-rodded one with a Griffon?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 05, 2019, 05:46:15 AM
Thanks folks! And Evan, historical tidbits are always most welcome  :smiley:

Going to extend this post-war with Merlin-powered versions of the MC.202/205V airframe or perhaps a hot-rodded one with a Griffon?

Wait for it  ;D  But first, a GTX-inspired diversion ...

Portaerei per Il Duce - Regia Marina Aircraft Carrier Development[/i]

In late 1935, the procurement staff of Italy's Regia Marina formalized their Requirement for an 'auxiliary aircraft carrier' and, in early 1936, issued a Request for Proposals. The Requirement made clear that naval staff were expecting a 'flat-top' conversion of an existing vessel. The flight deck and steam catapult would be strictly for carrier-based aircraft - there were to be no recovery cranes or stowage areas for seaplanes of any kind.

The first response came from Ansaldo shipyards of Genoa. This submission proposed a carrier modification of an Ansaldo-built ocean liner - the MS Augustus, built at the Genoa yard a decade earlier. As modified, this carrier conversion would feature a 171 metre-long flight deck, two aircraft elevators, and three below-decks aircraft hangars (one serving as a repair shop and parts stowage area). For this conversion proposal, the Regia Marina assigned the temporary re-naming - RM Falco. In its submission, Ansaldo noted that, if the Regia Marina were to desire a second aircraft carrier, a sister ship - the SS Roma - could also be made available for conversion.

The second RfP reponse came from the Cantiere Navale Triestino (CNT) of Monfalcone. An ocean liner built by that yard - MS Saturnia - had just completed trooping duties for the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December 1935, the nine-year-old Saturnia had been returned to her builder's yard for re-engining. CNT proposed that she be rebuilt along the lines of Japan's updated Hosho aircraft carrier - complete with full-length flight deck and folding funnels. [1] A tentative technical assistance agreement had already been arranged with Asano Shipbuilding - the Japanese makers of the Hosho - and the Imperial Japanese Navy's Yokosuka Naval Arsenal. If a second vessel was required by the Regia Marina, a sister-ship - MS Vulcania - was available for conversion. [2]

Weighing the comparative advantages was fairly straightforward. The MS Augustus was a comparatively large ship with an overall length of 215.25 m and a beam of 25.2 m while MS Saturnia was only 181.58 m long with a beam of 24.31 m. Because the CNT conversion was to feature a full-length flight deck, that surface would actually be more than 11 metres longer that the flight deck proposed for the Ansaldo project. [3] On the deficit side, the CNT flight deck would be one metre narrower than that proposed by Ansaldo. Ansaldo appealed to national prestige with an all-Italian approach to design and construction. By contrast, the CNT plan was to source catapults and other specialized carrier gear from Japan.

The Regia Marina regarded CNT's scheme to import the catapult, transverse arresting gear, aircraft lifts, etc., from Japan very favourably - in part because it freed Italian naval architects to concentrate on the design of cruisers and other capital ships. The Ministero dell'Aeronautica assessment also favoured the CNT bid. A longer flight deck was valued and CNT's slightly narrower deck did not represent a problem for the planned shipboard aircraft - 'hooked' biplanes in the form of the Fiat C.R.32N fighter and IMAM Ro.43bis reconnaissance-bomber. Accordingly, the CNT proposal was given official approval in August 1936 and a conversion contract was issued in October 1936.

Under Regia Marina nomenclature rules, the MS Augustus hull would be re-named. CNT recommended an 'unsinkable island' name and RM Sicilia was tentatively accepted. However, the ship continued to be referred to as the Augustus as conversion work began. In 1938, reflecting changes in official naming policy, the conversion would be re-named again - this time as the RM Garibaldi.

CNT had allowed for six months to refurbish and re-engine MS Saturnia as a liner. She was scheduled to receive two, new Sulzer diesel engines which had already been delivered to the CNT yard at Monfalcone. These double-ended diesels would develop a total power of 41,000 bhp intended to give the liner a 22 knots top speed. However, inevitable weight gains in the carrier converted process reduced top speed to 20 knots (although this remained at least as fast as the proposed Ansaldo conversion). Beyond re-engining, the entire superstructure had to be removed along with the original funnels. A girder-work structure was erected to support the wooden flight deck. Two new folding funnels were mounted on the starboard side outboard of the flight deck. [4]  Two elevators pierced the flight deck at either end of a new below-decks hangar for the ship's aircraft. Beneath the aircraft levels, aviation fuel storage tanks and ammunition magazines were fitted. [5] This work progressed rather slower than expected and, as a result, the re-named RM Garibaldi was not finally delivered to the Regia Marina until March 1939.

On her maiden cruise, RM Garibaldi carried an aircraft complement of 12 C.R.32N fighters and 9 Ro.43bis reconnaissance-bombers. Both the Regia Marina and Ministero dell'Aeronautica regarding these docile biplanes as interim equipment for the new aircraft carrier. In 1939, two competitions were announced for replacement aircraft. These future fighters and recce-bombers were both to be higher-performance monoplanes. (No shipboard torpedo-bomber was planned since the Regia Aeronautica was very satisfied with its land-based Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 bombers carrying 450mm Whitehead torpedoes.)

(To be continued ...)

_________________________________

[1] An obvious difference was that the Italian carrier retained a raised superstructure for its wheel house.

[2] Although assigned to military support, both CNT-built liners technically remained property of the Cosulich - Società Triestina di Navigazione line.

[3] Ansaldo's plans called for the flight deck to end 45 m short of the upper bow to facilitate gun emplacements.

[4] The twin folding-funnels became a recognition-book feature for the Garibaldi, readily distinguishing its profile from that of the Japanese Hosho with its triple folding-funnels. (A more subtle distinction was that the wheel house/control tower of the RM Garibaldi was set further aft than that of the Hosho.)

[5] Conversion work included installing defensive gun positions (including side-slung 'gondoli' for light anti-aircraft cannons) but the RM-provided weapons themselves would not be installed until final fitting-out and work-up in March 1939.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 05, 2019, 05:49:00 AM
Aerei Moderni - Updating Italy's Shipboard Carrier Aircraft

Most pressing for equipping Italy's new aircraft carrier was a modern, high-performance monoplane fighter. Accordingly, the Ministero dell'Aeronautica had launched a Caccia (Navale) contest before the carrier conversion had even left the ways. Although this C(N) competition was open only to current Regia Aeronautica fighter types, there were several 'non-compliant' submissions. The CMASA-modified Fiat C.R.42N (Navale) was rejected as a biplane; the Caproni-Vizzola F.5RM and AUSA T.18N as then non-service types; the Nardi FN.531 as unflown, and others for then-unavailable engine types. [1] The accepted line-up of candidates consisted of the long-span Fiat G.50bis A/N (Navale), the Macchi C.202C (Catapultabile), and the Reggiane Re.2000 OG (Organizzazione Garibaldi). [2] Essentially 'hooked' versions of land-based fighters, prototypes of all three naval fighters were all run through mock carrier landings on a simulated flight deck.

The Fiat submission - a modified pre-series G.50A with 'short' wings - lost its arrestor hook in a simulated landing-on and was returned to CMASA for repairs. Official favour rested with the Reggiane fighter - despite its awkward fuel tank arrangement and slightly inferior view from the cockpit. Aeronautica Macchi responded with a refined C.200Pa (Portaerei) with full naval equipment and the option of introducing wing-folding in future (anticipating that potential in the rival, long-span Fiat G.50bis A/N. Those features and the greater reliability of the C.200's A.74 engine over the Reggiane's Piaggio P.IX won the day. In May 1940, Aeronautica Macchi was awarded a contract for 24 C.200Pa shipboard fighters. [3]

The seconded aviation re-equipment contest was for a replacement for the IMAM (Meridionali) Ro.43bis. This Ricognizione (Navale) competition proved more troublesome. The R(N) winner, announced in late February 1940, was the Breda Ba.68 - a two-seater based upon Breda's land-based Ba.65 P.XI attack aircraft.

(To be continued ...)

_________________________________

[1] The Nardi FN.531 was a 'navalized' FN.530 caccia leggero powered by a French Gnome-Rhone 14M Mars radial engine. However, the Regia Marina saw no need for a 'light fighter'. Two other types were rejected for their then-unproven Alfa Romeo 135 engines - the AVIS CO.2 gull-wing monoplane and the Breda Ba.100N monoplane.

[2] The inclusion of Reggiane resulted in official protests from Caproni-Vizzola and AUSA - none of which had fighters which were operational with the Regia Aeronautica, as demanded by the Specificiation.

[3] Unlike the prototype C.200C, all C.200Pa fighters (MM.5163-5186) would be constructed by Breda.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 05, 2019, 07:47:03 AM
I never considered a Macchi for carrier service! What a great concept and yet more killer Italian color schemes too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 05, 2019, 10:07:10 AM
I should add to that historical tidbit.  The plant nearly downtown in Varese is the same facility they started in back in 1912.  At the time, it was outside the city which has now grown to quite surround it.

I loved the bits on the Italian carriers and the development of aircraft for them.

I'm looking forward to see what comes next.  I know the MC.204 was a MC.202 with a lower-rated engine for training (I have the SEM conversion in 1/72 for this unbuilt, in our world, version).  I'm rather hoping your development will see a MC.202/205V variant with the Zeta engine fitted to the Caproni-Vizzola F.6Z and the unbuilt Caproni-Reggiane Re.2004.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 06, 2019, 12:38:55 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 06, 2019, 03:32:55 AM
Thanks folks. And thank Evan for the historical tidbits. I noted that the Breda plant location - now an urban park - is now completely surrounded by city growth as well.

I have one more bit about the Italian carrier, then back of track with Castoldi's historical Macchi projects and a few whiffier derivatives. The C.204 is next up but a 'C.205Z' is also in the works - thanks for the inspiration

______________________

The original carrier-borne reconnaissance-bomber was the IMAM Ro.43bis biplane. The Ro.43bis was simply the Ro.43 ship-borne catapult floatplane fitted with the fixed undercarriage of the land-based IMAM Ro.37. The Ro.43bis was fitted with the Ro.43's 700 hp Piaggio P.X R radial (rather than the Ro.37's 560 hp Piaggio P.IX RC.40) giving a top speed of 225 mph. [1] While that was a useful advance on the Ro.37 (which could manage only 205 mph), the performance of the Ro.43bis was quickly seen to be out-performed by almost all potentially-opposing monoplanes. A replacement for the Ro.43bis - outlined in the Ricognizione (Navale) competition - was clearly needed.

The outcome of the 1939 Caccia (Navale) contest resulted in the Macchi C.200Pa (Portaerei) being ordered in May 1940. The Ricognizione (Navale) competition proved more troublesome. The R(N) winner, announced in late February 1940, was the Breda Ba.68 - a two-seater based upon Breda's land-based Ba.65 P.XI attack aircraft. By way of a demonstrator, the Societa Italiana Ernesto Breda fitted a Ba.65 with naval equipment at Sesto San Giovanni. On loan from the Regia Aeronautica, this aircraft was re-designated  Ba.65R(N) and delivered to the Regia Aeronautica for mock deck landing trials.

Top Breda Ba.65R(N) demonstrator redeployed on Regia Marina camouflage trials. Note that this aircraft is marked as a 'Breda 68'. The Ba.65R(N) has been refinished in Azzurra top surfaces over Grigio Mimetico undersides. The original yellow cowling has been overpainted as has the fuselage recognition band.

The production version of the Breda Ba.68 was structurally very similar to the Regia Aeronautica's Ba.65 P.XI attack bomber. However, externally, the two types could quickly be distinguished by the Ba.68's twin tails (adopted to improve stability on approach for carrier landings). Less obvious was a revised, cooler-running cowling (adapted from that of the Ba.88 Lince bomber. Offensive armament was four fixed, forward-firing machine guns - two 12.7 mm and two 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns - and up to 550 kg of bombs. Defensive armament comprised a flexible 7.7 mm gun in the observer's cockpit and another 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT on a 'wobble-mount' in the extreme tail-cone. In service, the 'wobble-mount' and fixed 7.7 mm wing guns were often removed to reduce the Ba.68's loaded weight.

Bottom The fourth production Breda Ba.68 aboard the RM Garibaldi in November 1940.

The Ba.68 proved to be a poor match for carrier operations. The Piaggio P.XI engine was less reliable than the admittedly less-powerful Fiat A.74 in the Macchi fighter. By the end of 1940, the Regia Marina was already looking to speed up development of a successor. A two-seat derivative of the Fiat G.50bis A/N was favoured for its engine commonality with the Macchi fighter but the Fiat's performance proved disappointing. In the end, the Reggiane Re.2002 OG - a two-seat development of the Re.2000 OG was adopted as the Regia Marina's new Ricognizione Veloce (Navale). Ironically, due to delays with the new Piaggio P.XIX radial, the Re.2002 OGs were delivered with the same troublesome Piaggio P.XI engines as had powered the Ba.68s. The Re.2002 OG's first combat engagement was unauspicious - three Reggiane's were shot down by anti-aircraft fire from HMS Carlisle on 22 March 1942 during the Second Battle of Sirte.

______________________

[1] For comparison sake, the float-equipped Ro.43 could only manage 186 mph on its 700 hp Piaggio P.X R engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 06, 2019, 03:57:57 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 06, 2019, 11:16:49 AM
Lovely art and story and quite plausible.  I'm enjoying this.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 07, 2019, 04:18:44 AM
Your Breda 65 R(N) is entirely plausible and once again, that scheme is a real showcase for your limitless artistic talent.

Another great feast for the eyes, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 08, 2019, 05:18:41 AM
Many thanks folks!

Under 'Real World Macchi C.200 Saetta Variants and Derivatives' (Reply #2038), I mentioned a few RW Macchi C.200 projects for which I had only vague written descriptions. Despite that, I've decided to do whif versions of two of those RW projects. First up is a built version of the mid-1937 C.200 Idro floatplane proposal...

Caccia Marittima - The Macchi C.200 Idro Float Fighter

In my version, the C.200 Idro is based upon the Ambrosini-built C.200 II serie airframe. This service aircraft sprang from a 1939 floatplane conversion of an early C.200 prototype. This demonstrator was entered into a Ministero dell'Aeronautica competition to replace the outdated IMAM (Meridionali) Ro.44 catapult biplane fighter within the shipboard Squadriglie Forze Navali. The key competitor for the C.200 Idro was the biplane Fiat I.C.R.42 conversion by CMASA at Marina di Pisa.

The Regia Marina regarded the C.200 Idro as challenging for average service pilots. However, the RM had also concluded that the I.C.R.42 represented an insufficient advance over the in-service Ro.44. As such, Aeronautica Macchi received an order for 24 C.200 Idro floatplanes in September 1939 (with construction work beginning in early 1940 at Macchi's Lago de Varese facility). The C.200 Idro received a distinct, revised side-glazing arrangement and an extended carburettor-intake trucking (to avoid ingesting spray). As production line conversions, the C.200 Idro had its main undercarriage bays blanked off and wing reinforcements created where float struts and bracing wires attached. Otherwise, the C.200 Idro floatplane airframe similar to that of the C.200 II serie.

Notions of shipborne C.200 Idros had already been abandoned by the time that the first aircraft was delivered in June 1940. Instead, the C.200 Idro replaced the Ro.44s of 161ª Squadriglia Caccia Marittima based on Lero in the Aegean. These aircraft were augmented by land-based C.200 Saettas of the Regia Aeronautica - the Regia Marina having tacitly admitted by early 1941 that the day of the floatplane fighter was finally over.

Cavallo Vapore ... There's Just No Substitute for Horsepower

One RW conversion produced the Macchi C.200bis. This XXI serie[/i] conversion (MM.8191) was fitted with a large-diameter 1,180 hp Piaggio P.XIX RC.35 radial engine and flew from Acerbi on 11 April 1942. I've decided to backdate that concept a bit and mount the earlier 1,025 hp Piaggio P.XIbis to create a 'C.200P'

The engine installation of the C.200P demanded major revisions to the base C.200 airframe. To re-establish the centre of gravity, the fuselage was extended. This was achieved by pushing the cockpit and rear fuselage slightly aft. The new forward fuselage was of enlarged diameter to accommodate the Piaggio engine. The lengthened fuselage forward of the cockpit also allowed for a revised main armament. In place of the standard pair of 12.7 mm machine guns, the C.200P prototype carried twin 20 mm Breda-SAFAT cannons. [1] The resulting C.200P was slightly faster and more heavily armed than the standard C.200 but manoeuvrability suffered somewhat and fuselage changes would have disrupted C.200 production lines. As such, the Ministero dell'Aeronautica placed no C.200P orders for the Regia Aeronautica.

_________________________________

[1] These experimental Breda-SAFAT 20 mm cannons were produced by first re-engineering the 12.7 mm gun. The new machine gun was chambered for a longer Browning-type 12.7 x 99 mm rather than the original, Vickers-type 12.7 x 81 mm round. The next step was to 'neck up' the Browning-style cartridge to produce a new 20 x 99 mm round.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 08, 2019, 08:56:23 AM
Sure looks a natural up on floats like that and once again you've rendered some absolutely delicious camo, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on March 08, 2019, 04:07:04 PM

nice floatplanization !

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 09, 2019, 03:30:06 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 09, 2019, 12:50:03 PM
Beautiful aircraft, both of those depicted.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 12, 2019, 05:08:29 AM
Evan mentioned the idea that the C.204 was lower-powered trainer for the C.202 Folgore. I'd never heard that before. But it got me thinking. Assuming that, instead of continuing C.200 Saetta production, both the C.202 and C.204 were produced as fighters, what would the Regia Aeronautica use as a 'lead-in' trainer at the Scuola di Addestramento Bombardamento e Caccia?

So, I'm resurrecting the C.203 designation again ... but for a different scenario. (This time, C.203 is a re-used designation following abandonment of the earlier twin-float recce aircraft design.) Here, the revived C.203 designation was applied to two advanced fighter-trainer concepts.

The first and earliest Macchi fighter-trainer derivative was the C.203F. The 'F' suffix in the designation refers to this aircraft's 600 hp Fiat A.30bis RA V-12 engine. The Fiat A.30bis was an obsolescing powerplant but the Regia Aeronautica had plentiful supplies of both engines and parts supplies for support. [1] In arrangement, the 'upright' Fiat V-12 was seen as an ideal trainer match for the somewhat larger Isotta-Fraschini L.121 V-12 of the operational Macchi C.204 fighters. All C.203F trainers were built by Breda.

Top Macchi C.203F fighter-trainer acting as a 'hack' for 85ª Squadriglia. '85-85' is unusual in being an unarmed C.203F II serie aircraft (most fighter squadrons choosing armed I serie C.203Fs).

The Macchi C.203F worked well as a 'lead-in' trainer for the C.204. The aircraft tended to be tail-heavy [2] (especially when radio gear was installed) but such handling challenges were actually welcomed in a fighter-trainer - future fighter pilots were not best trained on docile mounts. However, the Fiat A.30bis engine was becoming increasingly obsolete and the search was on for suitable replacements.

A further development of the 'lead-in' fighter-trainer concept began as the C.203G. This was to be powered by a 540 hp Isotta-Fraschini Gamma RC.35-IS - an air-cooled inverted V-12 engine. Plans shifted with the availability of the higher-powered Isotta-Fraschini Asso 120 IRCC.40 of similar configuration. This inverted V-12 would later be re-named the Delta (in Isotta-Fraschini's new 'Greek Letter' nomenclature). Design work on the re-designated C.203D was then ordered transferred to one of Aeronautica Macchi's less busy neighbours - SAI Ambrosini. [3]

Part of the Ministero dell'Aeronautica's incentive to transfer C.203D work to Ambrosini was that firm's more recent experience with wooden construction techniques. The Regia Aeronautica's engineering study group at Guidonia (the Corpo del genio aeronautico) had recommended that even advanced trainers should be constructed of 'non-strategic' materials to conserve Italy's limited supplies of aluminium. As such, SAI Ambrosini was instructed to begin redesigning the C.203 airframe for primarily wooden construction.

Bottom Largely completed Macchi C.203D fighter-trainer prototype fitted with Isotta-Fraschini Delta engine.

The C.203D airframe proved overweight as well as exhibiting some structural weaknesses. A debate commenced between officials at the Ministero dell'Aeronautica and CGA staff at Guidonia as to whether it was best to revert to standard Macchi 'metal' construction or to redesign the wooden C.203D structure. SAI Ambrosini countered with a proposal that work cease on the C.203D derivative and their existing, wooden-structured SAI.7 be adopted for training - in both 2-seat SAI.7DC advanced trainer and single-seat fighter-trainer forms.

A compelling argument by SAI Ambrosini was that the C.203D required the Isotta-Fraschini Delta engine - itself strategically important with a growing number of combat aircraft types requiring that powerplant. The original SAI.7, on the other hand, was powered by an imported 280 hp Hirth HM 508D air-cooled inverted V-8. [4] For the combat trainer variants, it was planned to install the same I-F Gamma RC.35-IS engine originally intended for the unbuilt C.203G. [5] So, in the Regia Aeronautica's planning, the smaller single-seat SAI.7AC (for 'Addestramento Caccia' or Fighter-Trainer, aka SAI.107AC) would replace the C.203D concept.

_________________________________

[1] Fiat A.30bis RA engines for the Macchi C.203F programme were sourced from both retiring Fiat C.R.32bis fighters and from IMAM Ro.37 recce-bombers being rebuilt to radial-engined Ro.37bis standards.

[2] The dry weight for the Fiat A.30 was 480 kg (1,060 lbs) versus 594 kg (1,310 lbs) for I-F's L.121 R.C.40. Even with the C.203F's forward-mounted radiator, the airframe had lost over 200 lbs forward of the c/g. The re-arranging of internal equipment could only counter that imbalance so much.

[3] Properly titled the Societa Aeronautica Italiana Ing. A. Ambrosini.

[4] The second prototype SAI.7 was powered by a 280 hp Isotta-Fraschini Beta RC.10 engine.

[5] With the Gamma engine, the military SAI.7s were closer to Ing. Sergio Stefanutti's SAI.107 light fighter - indeed, the single-seat fighter-trainer would be virtually indistinguishable.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 12, 2019, 06:56:05 AM
Seems a natural as advanced trainers and has a bit of a Miles feel to it.

Speaking of natural, your rendering of that natural wood is outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 12, 2019, 08:00:42 AM
Beautiful and quite plausible.  From what I can find, including SEM's conversion kit, the C.204 had an Isotta-Fraschini Asso L121 RC.40 of some 900-1000 HP, making it an excellent lead-in trainer, but this was never pursued to actual hardware.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 13, 2019, 03:35:18 AM
Beautiful and quite plausible.  From what I can find, including SEM's conversion kit, the C.204 had an Isotta-Fraschini Asso L121 RC.40 of some 900-1000 HP, making it an excellent lead-in trainer, but this was never pursued to actual hardware.

Or did they ...  >:D

The Macchi C.204 is usually viewed as a failed alternative to the famous C.202 Folgore. [1] The difference between the two was mainly engine type. For the C.202 that was the 1,175 hp German DB 601A-1 initially and then its licensed Italian equivalent, the Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 R.C.41-I. For the C.204, the powerplant was to be a 900/1,000 hp Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 R.C.40 V-12.

In reality, the I-F L.121 engine never really went anywhere - and it was an upright 'V diritto' when Regia Aeronautica preferences had turning to inverted inlines (anticipating the Fiat A.38, an inverted V-16). That said, deliveries of the C.202 were slow because of engine shortages (no more than 50 DB 601s or R.A.1000s arriving at Varese monthly). As a result, the by-then woefully inadequate C.200 Saetta also had to be kept in production.

But what if the C.204 had been viewed as an 'as-well-as' instead of an 'instead-of'? Rather than continuing with the C.200, Macchi delivers as many C.202s as Alfa's engine deliveries allow. The same production line is interspersed with C.204 fitted with the lower powered but slightly lighter L.121 engine. [2] Other than the firewalls and upper fuselage profile forward of the cockpit, the C.202 and C.204 production airframes could have been identical.

I've shown the prototype C.204 with a sliding canopy (which shows up in some of its profile drawings). I've also given this first C.204 the retractable tailwheel from the prototype C.204. The operational C.204 I've imagined following the same evolution as the production C.202.

___________________________

[1] Although as Evan said, there's always the possibility that the C.204 was meant to be lower-powered trainer for future Folgore pilots.

[2] An R.A.1000 R.C.41-I weighed about 630 kg, dry. The L.121 R.C.40 weighed 594 kg.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 13, 2019, 03:51:51 AM
Your rendering of the mottling on that bottom one is superb, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Vuk on March 13, 2019, 03:53:41 AM
C200 Idro  :-*

With an all-red repaint it could be Marco Paggot's next bird  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 13, 2019, 06:22:53 AM
That production one is a temptation to model with the SEM conversion.  Beautiful art and back story.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on March 13, 2019, 09:59:48 AM

Speaking of natural, your rendering of that natural wood is outstanding!

Brian da Basher

For sure!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 15, 2019, 05:55:51 AM
Thanks folks! I have surrendered my earlier fantasy of proceeding numerically by designation. I'm afraid that it's an organizational dog's breakfast from here on  :P

Un Colpo di Fulmine! - The Aer.Macchi C.201ter Fighter-Bomber

The Macchi C.201 was intended as a higher-powered derivative of the C.200 Saetta ... but that didn't pan out. With the cancellation of Fiat's 1,000 hp A.76 R.C.40 engine, that original C.201 approach foundered. So, for the near-complete prototype C.201 (MM.436), the airframe was simply adapted for the C.200's A.74 R.C.38. The C.201's finer fuselage design resulted in some performance gain ... but not enough.

Pure horsepower was required to gain the performance that Mario Castoldi's knew his fighter's airframe was capable of. At Castoldi's instigation, a Daimler Benz DB 601A-1 engine was imported from Germany. The Ministero dell'Aeronautica then acquire license-production rights on behalf of Alfa Romeo who would build this engine for Italian use as the R.A.1000 R.C.41-I. Accordingly, the MdA ordered another C.201 airframe (MM.445) to be completed with an imported Daimler Benz engine. This aircraft flew as the prototype C.202 Folgore in August 1940.

It would take Breda another 8 months to rejig C.200 tooling at Sesto San Giovanni for C.202 production and over a year before the first operational Folgore fighter would see service with the Regia Aeronautica. In the meantime, at their Varese factory, Aer.Macchi had begun turning out similar C.204 fighters powered by domestic Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 R.C.40 upright V-12s. However, I-F's L.121 output was quite limited and Alfa Romeo's deliveries rarely exceeded fifty R.A.1000s per month. [1] With such a paltry output of new fighters, the MdA concluded that the mediocre C.200 would also need to be retained in production.

Aeronautica Macchi put forward an alternative proposal. Rather than continuing Saetta production, Aer.Macchi proposed a revised C.201 concept. This new aircraft - identical to the C.202 and C.204 aft of the firewall - would be powered by the Saetta's lower-powered Fiat A.74 radial engine. Superior performance (compared with the C.200, at least) would be assured by the higher fineness ratio inherent in employing the slimmer C.202/C.204 fuselage. The Saetta's fuselage 'hump' had now disappeared altogether, made possible by slipping the new fighter's gun barrel's in between the Fiat radial's cylinder heads.

The Ministero dell'Aeronautica accepted Aer.Macchi's proposal, now designated C.201ter. [2] The first machine would be created from the unfinished second prototype C.201 (MM.437). [3] Using many C.204 components, the prototype C.201ter came together very quickly. Compared with the original C.201 (or, indeed the C.200), the C.201ter had revised engine mounts with an accordingly higher thrust line. As noted, the barrels of the twin 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns passed between the cylinders on the C.201ter. The higher engine mounts also resulted in a completely revised exhaust manifold system.

Top The prototype C.201ter (MM.437) as rolled out at Lonate Pozzolo (Varese) airfield.

Production of the C.201ter commenced very smoothly and the aircraft were interspered among the C.204s at Varese-Schiranna (C.201ter serie I) and C.202s at Breda, Sesto S. Giovanni/Bresso (serie II). [4] Initial production C.201ters differed little from the prototype. Breda introduced the C.201ter serie IV with additional 7.7 mm wing guns but this was overshadowed by Aer.Macchi's serie III - the C.201ter-cb (caccia bombardiere), a fighter-bomber adaptation with twin wing racks. Most were intended for use in Libya (Africa Settentrionale) and later serie III aircraft were fitted with built-in dust filters similar to those of C.202s.

Top An early production C.201ter-ch/AS fighter-bomber. This aircraft has been 'Africanized' but lacks the later-style carburettor intake with integral dust filter.
_________________________________

[1] It had been hoped that Alfa production would augment DB 601A imports but Germany was reluctant to release many Daimler Benz engines for export.

[2] The C.201bis was an unbuilt version of the A.76-powered C.201 with added 7.7 mm wing guns. The C.201ter was dubbed Fulmine (Lightning Bolt) but this name found no popular usage (perhaps, being confusingly similar in meaning to Folgore).

[3] MM.437 was originally scheduled to become the first prototype C.204. However, in the end, a pre-production C.202 airframe was re-engined as the first C.204.

[4] When Aer.Macchi transferred C.204 production to the Società Aeronautica Italiana 'Ambrosini' plant across town, SAI Ambrosini also took over Macchi's C.201ter production.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 16, 2019, 05:41:27 AM
You keep out-doing yourself with that awesome mottling, apophenia!

The prototype version is sharp as a tack too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2019, 03:56:36 AM
A Quest for Height - The 'Caccia Alta Quota' Contest

Feeling confident in its Caccia (Intercettori) choices, the Ministero dell'Aeronautica issued an open Richiesta di Pareri (Request for Proposals) for high-altitude interceptors based upon in-service monoplane fighter airframes. Performance demands were extreme - including an operating altitude of at least 15,000 metres [1] - but submitting design offices could expect technical assistance from the Regia Aeronautica's Direzione superiore del Genio e delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (DGCA). Still, this 'Caccia Alta Quota' requirement was daughting for the then-current state of aviation technology in Italy.

Useful performance data was being gleaned by the Reparto Alta Quota, 1° Centro sperimentale (High Altitude Department, 1st Experimental Centre) based at Montecelio-Guidonia  outside Rome. There, a specially modified Caproni Ca.161 biplane was being put through its high-altitiude paces. Initial trials had been performed with the pilot wearing a full pressure suit. Later, as modified Ca.161bis, this airframe was fitted with full pressure cabin. Both pressurization approaches were incorporated as alternatives in Dott. Ing. Castoldi's response to the Ministero dell'Aeronautica 'Caccia Alta Quota' requirement.

Macchi submitted two Saetta-based proposals for the 'Caccia Alta Quota' requirement. The first - and Castoldi's preferred approach - was the C.200 TP (for Tuta Pressurizzata or pressure suit). The second submission was the C.200 CS (for Cabina Stagna or pressure cabin). To Ing. Castoldi's chagrin, the MdA chose to pursue the back-up C.200 CS approach with full pressure cabin. [2]

A High-Altitude Saetta - The Macchi C.200AQ

The C.200 CS concept was refined into the airframe built as the prototype C.200AQ (for Alta Quota or High Altitiude). By comparison with a standard Saetta, the C.200AQ had greatly extended wingtips complete with longer-span ailerons. Power was provided by a specially-built Fiat A.74 R.C.150 engine aspirated by a Fiat-developed turbosupercharger (based upon Fiat's license for the US General Electric Type-B turbo). This turbo was mounted semi-externally on the portside of the forward fuselage, matched on the starboard side by an intercooler. The now-detachable, semi-monocoque rear fuselage sandwiched a new pressure cabin between it and the forward fuselage/wings section.

The C.200AQ pressure cabin was based directly on the Cabina Stagna of the Ca.163bis experimental aircraft. This pressure cabin was supplied to Aer.Macchi by the Regia Aeronautica's Reparto Alta Quota (High Altitude Department) at Montecelio-Guidonia. Although the C.200AQ lost much of its commonality with the standard Saetta, the readily-dismantled airframe was seen as an advantage for testing in a pressure chamber. Alas, that very ability led directly to the C.200AQ's downfall. In August 1940, the C.200AQ engine and forward fuselage were placed in the pressure chamber at Montecelio-Guidonia. At a simulated altitude of 12,000 m, the Fiat turbosupercharger exploded and the airframe caught fire inside the chamber. The forward airframe was badly damaged in the resulting blaze. [3] This was the end for the unflown Macchi C.200AQ airframe.

A Second Arrow in the Quiver - Or, Macchi's High-Altitude Alternative

It is not quite fair to say 'the end' for the C.200AQ airframe. That aircraft's high-altitude wings and detachable rear fuselage were not in the Montecelio-Guidonia pressure chamber on that fateful day in August 1940. Although it now seemed inevitable that Fiat would be awarded the 'Caccia Alta Quota' contract, Ing. Castoldi was not yet ready to throw in the towel. Instead, Castoldi had another plan for the remains of the C.200AQ. Isotta-Fraschini had approach the [/i]Dottore-ingeniore[/i] with an alternative for a high-altitude interceptor. This scheme involved the use of the Asso L.121 V-12 engine mated with twin Szydlowski-Planiol type turbosuperchargers which had been developed in-house at Isotta-Fraschini.

As this new approach would be a private-venture from Macchi and Isotta-Fraschini, Castoldi had a freer hand in its design. Initially, the plan was to revive the Tuta Pressurizzata (pressure suit) approach. However, trials revealed that the turbos were likely to give a diminishing return above 12,500 m. If the planned service ceiling was lowered from 15,000+ m to 13,500 m, a lighter and less structurally-demanding pressure cabin could be constructed. And this was the approach adopted for what became the Macchi C.204AQ.

A triple-walled aluminium Cabina Stagna was constructed for this high-altitude interceptor design. In the C.200AQ, steel-tube trusses had connected the fore and aft fuselage sections while also cradling the larva-like pressure cabin. In contrast, in the C.204AQ, the lighter-weight Cabina Stagna itself formed a central fuselage structure (to which the wings and fore-and-aft sections when then attached). So, despite its designation, the C.204AQ had little affinity with the C.204 fighter other than their base engine types. The C.204AQ was, in effect, a C.200AQ powered by a turbosupercharged Asso L.121 engine. With twin turbos taking up much of the forward fuselage space, the intercooler was relocated to a large belly 'bath' (shared with the engine coolant radiator).

One other connection between the two Macchi high-altitude types was their propellers. The C.200AQ sported a variable-pitch propeller of original design by F.I.E.T. (Fabbrica Italiana Eliche Torino). [4] The propeller had a novel, airstream-driven variable-pitch mechanism (fed by a venturi intake in the nose of its spinner). While the pitch mechanism proved somewhat unreliable, the propeller's broad-chord paddle blades were thought ideal for high altitude performance. The C.204AQ featured a hybrid propeller system. The hub and pitch mechanism were derived from the proven Piaggio P.1004 propeller of the standard C.204 fighter. To this hub were mated new F.I.E.T. wooden paddle blades. Overall, compared with the C.200AQ, the C.204AQ's simpler structure and less high-strung powerplant, seemed to assure success for the  new interceptor.

Bottom Prototype C.204AQ as first test flown by Ten.Col. Mario Pezzi of the 1° Centro sperimentale (1st Experimental Centre), Reparto Alta Quota at Montecelio-Guidonia, December 1940. The heavy cockpit cover with distinctive 'porthole' openings was applied only to the prototype which was intended to test the limits of the Macchi airframe's high altitude performance. Production C.204AQ aircraft were fitted with a clear-view, multi-framed perspex canopy.

______________________________

[1] This RdP represented an optimistic requirement. In October 1938, the highly-experimental Caproni Ca.161bis - a pressure cabin-equipped biplane - had only just achieved an altitude of 15,000 m.

[2] This Macchi development contract was matched with a similar contract for Fiat to build a G.50bis/AQ prototype and further study contracts for Meridionali (for IMAM Ro.51-based interceptors) and Breda (for a high-altitude derivative of the unbuilt Ba.100). By this stage, OM Reggiane SpA had withdrawn its Re.2000-based submission.

[3] In the aftermath of the 17 August 1940 blaze, it was concluded that only the Cabina Stagna was worth saving. After its recovery, the pressure cabin was returned to the DGCA. The other charred remains of the C.200AQ forward fuselage were later scrapped.

[4] F.I.E.T. was better know for its 2-bladed, fixed-pitch propellers for Italian-made light aircraft. While inexperienced at high-performance, constant-speed props, F.I.E.T. had plenty of experience with designing and creating wooden propeller blades.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 20, 2019, 02:12:56 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 20, 2019, 03:08:11 AM
That C.200AQ sure looks every bit the business and I especially like how you rendered the turbo supercharger.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 20, 2019, 09:38:28 AM
I love those "AQ" variants and both are quite plausible and well rendered.  Looking forward to further developments to be uncovered here.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2019, 05:04:25 AM
Thanks guys! The turbos may be a little over-scorched for prototypes ... but it's more fun to render them that way  ;)

Before moving on to the Macchi C.205, a bit of background history and designation de-tangling ...

As is fairly common with wartime aircraft evolutions, the begats and designation sequences get confused by 'interim' designs filling an immediate requirement. Such is the case with C.205 variants. Best known is the C.205V Veltro which, as noted earlier, began as the C.202bis. The C.202bis was a 'least mod' approach to applying the more powerful Daimler Benz DB 605A-1 engine - and its Italian-built equivalents - to the C.202 airframe.

The Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58-I Tifone engine was the Italian-licensed DB 605A-1 meant to replace the less-powerful and lower altitude-rated Alfa Romeo-built DB 601A-1 - the R.A.1000 R.C.41-I. Aft of the firewall, the C.202bis was to be essentially identical to the late production C.202 serie X airframe. Such a development had the obvious advantage of minimal disruption to production of the Macchi fighter - by then, being built by Aeronautica Macchi at Varese-Schiranna (55 km north of Milan), by nearby Società Aeronautica SAI Ambrosini also of Varese, and by Breda (Societa Italiana Ernesto Breda) at Sesto San Giovanni (8 km northwest of Milan).

The prototype C.202bis - a converted C.202 serie X airframe - flew on 19 April 1942. Powered by an imported DB 605A-1, the C.202bis differed externally from the standard R.A.1000-powered C.202 in having a slightly larger spinner, twin annular oil coolers beneath the cowling, and a semi-retractable tail wheel. Soon after this first flight, the Ministerio dell'Aeronautica applied a new designation scheme for all Tifone-powered fighters. Henceforth the C.202bis was to be referred to as the C.205 - the last number in that designation indicating a new Tifone-powered fighter. [1]

Specifically, the C.202bis became the C.205V Veltro. Most sources translate 'Veltro' as a generic 'greyhound'. And it can be ... although levriero is a more common Italian term for a greyhound. More properly, Veltro is the symbolic saviour of Italy in Dante’s Inferno (and, obviously, it was hoped in mid-1942 that Macchi's C.205V Veltro would now become a saviour of Benito Mussolini's faltering Fascist regime). So, Veltro is an apt name for a heroic defender but, as we'll see, a name that also excludes the C.205V from the company of the other Tifone-powered fighters.

(To be continued ...)
________________________

[1]  That 'last 5' would be applied to the Macchi C.205V and C.205N Orione, Fiat G.55 Centauro, Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario, and Caproni-Vizzola  F.6M (the F.6Z being I-F Zeta-powered). For whatever reason, Caproni (Taliedo) and Caproni Bergamasca projects with Tifone engines never seemed to receive '6' designations
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2019, 05:08:33 AM
This one is (almost) pure whif ...

'Tedesci' Macchi - The 'Germanized' Ma 205G (Germania)

There were several wartime foreign operators of inline-engined Macchi fighters. Luftwaffe units briefly flew Macchi C.202s as did the Air Force of the Independent State of Croatia, the Zrakoplovstvo Nezavisne Države Hrvatske (ZNDH). Both foreign air forces would also later operate the more powerful C.205V Veltro. For several months near the end of 1943, Germany's JG 77 (of II. Gruppe) flew requisioned Macchi C.205V fighters. [1] The ZNDH would also receive Veltros in the summer of 1944. But, by then, Allied bombing had seriously hampered Aeronautica Macchi's ability to deliver newly-produced fighters. [2]

Top Macchi C.205V (aka Ma 205G-1) flown by ZNDH Bojnik (Major) Josip Helebrant from Zagreb late in the war.

Ironically, there had been discussions at the highest level within the Luftwaffe about adopting the Italian C.205V for German service. [3] Macchi designated aircraft for Luftwaffe orders as C.205G (for Germania). However, the war was turning against the Axis. After initial deliveries to the Luftwaffe of C.205G-2s, [4] it was decided - in the Autumn of 1944 - to relocate Macchi production to the Reich. Accordingly, trainloads of tooling and completed Macchi components (for both the C.205V and C.202) began to be shipped north. Plans were to assemble Macchi components at Wiener Neustadt in Austria. [5] Initially, disruption of Bf 109 production at WN had been judged acceptable but, later on, cooler head prevailed. Instead, the trains rolled on north heading for Trautenau in the Sudetenland.

At Trautenau, Macchi assembly was begun in a former textile mill near a large AEG plant. [6] Here, out of easy Allied bombing range from Italian bases, assembly proceeded fairly smoothly. The first Trautenau-assembled model was essentially similar to the C.205T-2 other than MG131 heavy machine guns replacing the cowl-mounted 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT guns. These aircraft were designated Macchi Ma 205T-3 using the new RLM maker's prefix. [7] The wing-mounted MG 151/20 cannons remained the same. The Ma 205T-4 was a rather less capable fighter - having lost the pair of cannons - and all were completed as photo-reconnaissance fighters. [8]

The first fully-'Germanized' Trautenau Macchi was the Ma 205T-5. This model abandoned the cowl guns in favour of a motor-kanone while retaining the 2 cm wing guns. The adoption of a VDM propeller in a Messerschmitt-type spinner quickly distinguished the Ma 205T-5 from earlier Macchis. Later-production Ma 205T-5s also introduced a clear-blown 'Beule' canopy, replacing the original, heavily-framed Macchi cockpit cover. Two variants of the Ma 205T-5 were produced side-by-side on the Trautenau production line. The Ma 205T-5/B was armed with a long-barrelled 3 cm MG103 cannon. The better-balanced Ma 205T-5/C was armed with the short-barrelled 3 cm MG108 auto-cannon. [9]

Bottom German-assembled Macchi Ma 205T-5 of an unknown unit at Trautenau, Böhmen, in late April 1945.

A prototype Ma 205T-6 fitted with an DB 605ASM engine was finished in February 1945 but shortly afterwards, the Flugzeugwerke Trautenau factory was heavily damaged by USAAF bombing. Contemporary Allied intelligence bulletins make mention of a 'Ma 205T-7' but the existence of this sub-type could never be confirmed after the Red Army occupied the Trautenau facility.

___________________________

[1] JG 77 flew Veltros from October to December 1943 when the unit re-equipped with new Messerschmitt Bf 109Gs.

[2] After an aborted attack on 25 April 1944, a large USAAF formation pounded Macchi's Varese factory on 01 May 1944. This B-17 raid left both the Macchi plant at Varese and its Breda licensee at Sesto San Giovanni/Bresso in flames. What was left of Italian C.205V production was now destroyed.

[3] It was agreed between Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland, and others, that the Macchi fighter had an excellent performance for its power. But the primarly incentive to take on the Italian fighter was to challenge what many in the LUftwaffe saw as growing complacency among German aircraft designers and manufacturers.

[4] Within this new designation system, requisioned Macchi C.205V with 'Germanized' instrumentation became C.205T-1s. The C.205T-2 model was similar but fitted with German radios and other Luftwaffe-standard equipment.

[5] In part, Wiener Neustadt was chosen for the ease with which completed fighters could be delivered to the RSI for use by the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana.

[6] As it happens, this facility had an aviation connection - having been the EFW factory during WWI. Connections to the AEG plant had less savoury connections - such proximity allowing Flugzeugwerke Trautenau GmbH access to the local forced labour camps.

[7] The Reichsluftfahrtministerium assigned the prefix 'Ma' for Macchi designs and the type designation 8-205 for the C.205V. For record-keeping purposes, German-controlled C.205V-1 and 'V-2 fighters were given the retroactive designations Ma 205G-1 and Ma 205G-2. For unknown reasons, the RLM retained the Ministero dell'Aeronautica's 'G' for Germania designation suffix.

[8] The Macchi Ma 205T-4 recce-fighters were 'cannon-less' because they were hybrid airframes which combined C.205V fuselages with C.202 wings. Adapting these airframes for photo-reconnaissance was quicker than modifying the wings for [serie] III C.205V-style Mauser cannons. The Ma 205T-4s were fitted with RB 32/7 cameras.

[9] The planned Ma 205T-5/A with a 2 cm Mauser MG151/20 motor-kanone was never produced.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 21, 2019, 07:24:45 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a Macchi in Croatian markings before and tip my hat to your creativity and artistry, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 21, 2019, 10:36:38 AM
Beautiful developments!!  I love the art and story and look forward to the next installments.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 22, 2019, 01:49:29 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 23, 2019, 03:37:04 AM
This pair are RW projects whiffed into an earlier completion. [1]

Macchi C.206 and C.207 - Beyond the C.205 Veltro and Orione

The Regia Aeronautica's serie 5 fighters were all powered by Daimler Benz DB 605A-1 engines - or its Italian copy, the Fiat RA.1050 R.C.58-I Tifone. However, the Ministero dell'Aeronautica was also anticipating a new generation of "caccia della serie 6" fighters powered by the larger and more powerful Daimler Benz DB 603A engine (which, it was hoped, would later be built under license in Italy by Alfa Romeo). [2] Ing. Castoldi proposed two designs to fit within this new serie 6 category - the C.206 and the C.207.

The C.206 and C.207 can be viewed as extrapolations on the C.205N prototypes benefiting from the passage of time. The longer-span C.205N wing was effectively C.202 panels with extended wingtips and inset ailerons. This was intended to improve C.205N performance at altitude with the trade-off being a heavier wing structure reducing manoeuvrability. For the C.206, Castoldi developed an even larger wing (area 21.00 m², span 12.142 m) but with a revised structure to reduce weight. The result was a fighter able to operate at higher altitudes with handling restored to the standards of the Folgore. The aerodynamic shape of the coolant radiators - both under-nose oil and belly glycol - were also refined.

As a serie 6 fighter, the C.206 was originally to be powered by a DB 603 but shortages of these engines in Italy resulted in a redesign for the C.206. Besides the revised, the C.206 had been lengthened to balance the larger and heavier DB 603. [3] These changes were retained by the airframe was adapted to take the smaller, less-powerful Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58-I Tifone. As with the C.205N's DB 605A-1, this engine accomodated an MG 151/20 motore-cannone. With the added forward fuselage space, the C.206 could be armed with both the Mauser motore-cannone and twin cowl-mounted 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns. [4] A further pair of MG 151/20 guns were mounted in the wings.

The pre-production Macchi C.206 Pantera (Panther) fighter was first delivered to the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana in late 1944. These early airframes were all powered by German DB 605As while Macchi awaited delivery of the first Fiat-built motore-cannone engines. Operational Panteras tended to be employed by the ANR as high-altitude interceptors. A C.206A model armed with a 30 mm motore-cannone was planned but Macchi was thwarted by the unavailability of German MK103 cannons. [5]

Top Operational Macchi C.206 Pantera of the ANR.

The C.207 was a more thoroughly-developed design. Power was finally to be provided by the larger DB 603 (or its Italian-made equivalent) with a MG 151/20 motore-cannone. The wingspan was increased once more - this time, by widening the centre-section - and four 20 mm cannons were now fitted in the wings outside of the propeller arc. The fuselage was stretched even more than the C.206, giving the aircraft a somewhat ungainly appearance. A prototype Macchi C.207 Lupa (She-Wolf) was flown from Lonate Pozzolo in late January 1945. This aircraft was powered by a German DB 603A but production examples were to use the licensed RA.1510 RC.57 Tempesta engines. [6] However, all C.207s on the Varese production lines were damaged or destroyed in a night raid by RAF bombers on 13/14 February 1945.

Bottom Prototype Macchi C.207 Lupa (She-Wolf), Macchi airfield at Lonate Pozzolo (Varese)

________________________________________

[1] There is some debate over just how complete the prototypes were at the time of the Armistice.

[2] The Alfa Romeo plant in Pomigliano d'Arco ('Alfasud di Pomigliano') near Naples was in no position to build DB 603s. On 30 May 1943, more than 70% of the Pomigliano plant was destroyed in a single bombing raid. By October 1943, the site was Allied-occupied.

[3] The DB 603A weighed 165 kg more than its smaller stablemate.

[4] The cowl guns could be enclosed within the revised fuselage. This was in contrast with the C.205N where, because of a trimmer fuselage, the cowl guns' breeches had to be faired with aerodynamic 'bulge' covers.

[5] An alternative armament of a 25 mm Breda motore-cannone was also planned but that gun never left the drawing board. Both C.206A concepts were to be armed solely with the heavy-calibre motore-cannone and twin 20 mm wing guns.

[6] That assumes, of course, an alternative production site for the licensed DB 603 north of the Linea Gotica (Gothic Line). (The Isotta-Fraschini plant at Saronno, 28 km NW of Milan would seem ideal).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 23, 2019, 04:07:33 AM
The mottling on those Macchis is superb!

The 207 echoes nicely of a Fiat G.55 Centauro.

A real feast for the eyes, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 24, 2019, 12:40:52 AM
Beautiful!!  You are doing these aircraft proud!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2019, 05:46:40 AM
Thanks folks! For the next bit, I've compressed the RW parts of this story (the suggestion by gen. Ilari actually came in late spring of 1943 and referred specifically to the C.205V. I've backdated developments). The aerosilurante bits are pure whif.

Bifusoliera - The 'Twin Macchi' Fighters

The 'Twin Macchi' concept originated in a recommendation from a mid-1942 by generale Eraldo Ilari, the Regia Aeronautica's new Deputy Chief of Staff for Construction and Procurement (Sottocapo di Stato maggiore per le costruzioni e gli approvvigionamenti). [1] Accordingly, Aeronautica Macchi's design office went through the motions of producing a bifusoliera or twin-fuselaged concept to satisfy generale Ilari.

Initial design work was for a twin-fuselage C.205. However, since the C.205 was just entering production, it was agreed that the first prototype 'Macchi Bifusoliera' would be based upon more readily available C.202 Folgore components. The fuselages were unchanged other the replacement of the portside cockpit with a long-range fuel tank. The two fuselages were joined by a new, constant-chord wing. This concept - known as the C.202Bif - went through three distinct phases. In the first, the original C.202 horizontal tails were retained (this was quickly abandoned in favour of a structurally-stronger, fuselage-joining single surface. In the second phase, the aircraft featured two complete sets of C.202 undercarriages. In the third phase, a new 2-piece main gear with larger tires was incorporated. [2]

Top Unbuilt Macchi C.202Bif concept (shown in its second design phase)

Armament for the C.202Bif in the long-range fighter role was to consist of four 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns but there was space for additional fixed guns in the wing centre section. In a caccia bombardiere, the C.202Bif/cb would mount bomb racks on the centre section and both outer wing panels. Bomb loads would consist of three 353 lb bombs or two 220 pounders with a 550 lb bomb on the centre rack. Despite all this design work, Aer.Macchi - and Dott. Ing. Castoldi in particular - made clear that it did not believe that the C.202Bif concept was worth pursuing.

Bifusoliera Aerosilurante - The 'Twin Macchi' Torpedo Fighter

In early spring 1943, generale Ilari reiterated his support for a twin-fuselaged Macchi - this time based on the C.205. This challenge was met by Castoldi's assistant, ing. Ermanno Bazzocchi. Rather than producing a generalized heavy fighter, the intent was to quickly produce an aircraft able to replace the Regia Aeronautica's S.M.79 in the torpedo-dropping role. The trimotored Savoia-Marchetti's were taking unacceptably high losses and a new operational approach was needed. To answer this, the proposed C.205 Bifusoliera would use its higher speed on approach and egress. Nearing his target, the C.205Bif would deploy air-brakes and lift-dumpers to slow his aircraft to a safe torpedo-dropping speed.

The weapon in use by the S.M.79's was a 450 mm diameter Whitehead air-dropped torpedo. [3] The problem was that this aereo siluro was 5.46 m long (without its detachable winglets) and weighed 680 kg. Fortunately for ing. Bazzocchi, the Silurificio Whitehead di Fiume had already begun work on a 'silurotto'. This short torpedo would still be of 450 mm diameter but with its length reduced to only 3.38 m (again, without those detachable winglets). The warhead remained the same but the cost was in range - which would force the C.205Bif to close with its target. Since the C.205Bif would provide enemy anti-aircraft gunners with a much smaller target than the S.M.79, this was considered an acceptable risk. [4]

The airframe of the C.205Bif was to be very similar to the third phase design of the unbuilt C.202Bif. However, wind tunnel testing showed that the Bifusoliera could benefit from a longer rear fuselage. As a result, the C.205Bif prototype fuselages were created primarily from C.205N Orione components. The port cockpit for the navigator/bombardier was set further aft to improve pilot view. The prototype's outer wing panels were standard C.205V components which were not fitted with the planned air-brakes and spoilers. This aircraft was first flown - as the C.205Bif/S (for Silurante) in the middle of August 1943.

Bottom Macchi C.205Bif/S shown in Aeronautica Sannita markings

With the Armistice of 08 September 1943, a Macchi test crew chose to answer Marshal Badoglio's call and flew the sole prototype C.205Bif/S south. In the early morning of 09 September, Allied air traffic control at the USAF's semi-completed Paestum airfield in Salerno, were surprised by the arrival of a previously unknown twin-fuselage fighter - complete with an experimental light weight torpedo. The civilian crew had taken off in the dark and skirted the Tyrrhenian coastline until reaching Allied-occupied territory. At dawn, the crew spotted Paestum's runway and quickly put their aircraft down.

The Macchi test crew were celebrated but, unfortunately, the Aeronautica Sannita (Co-Belligerent Air Force) had no real operational requirement for a torpedo-fighter. After some trial flights (including the test expediture of the 'silurotto'), the C.205Bif/S was turned over the the Aeronautica Sannita's combined Macchi C.202/C.205V Squadriglia for use as a pilot proficiency trainer. The sole C.205Bif/S was written off in that role in early 1944 as a result of a ground loop.

___________________________

[1] After the end of WW2, gen. Ilari would become a Director at Aeronautica Macchi.

[2] Although the new undercarriage design was much more robust, it was considerably lighter than the 4-legged gear. Twin tailwheels were employed for both phases of the C.202Bif design.

[3] Produced by the Silurificio Whitehead di Fiume, this airborne torpedo was properly designated W 170 x 450/5,46 Whitehead.

[4] The aircraft would retain its Mauser wing guns in the hope that these would help counter defensive gunners.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 26, 2019, 07:10:37 AM
Beautiful and suggestive of some attractive whif models.

One small typo, I believe "...- as the C.205Bif/S (for Silurante) in the middle of August 1945." should be "...- as the C.205Bif/S (for Silurante) in the middle of August 1943."
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 27, 2019, 12:44:09 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 27, 2019, 02:43:06 AM
Cheers! And thanks Evan, the proofing is much appreciated!

It might be stating the obvious but many of these Macchi posts are for separate, sometime mutually-exclusive scenarios. The next phase will all be whiffier but the whif-designations I've tried to make inter-related.

The next designation sequence starts with the C.210 - last of the radial-engined developments. In this case, the designation refers to a 'next-generation' C.200. Where possible, Aer.Macchi stuck to that pattern but other designations were imposed by Ministero dell'Aeronautica serie numbers. The Macchi 'Teen Series' designations go as following:

C.210 - Super Saetta, BMW 801-powered evolution, developed by Breda

C.211 -  (Unbuilt Project), aka C.210bis, BMW 801-powered C.202 derivative, developed by Aer.Macchi

C.212 - (Unbuilt Project), aka C.212R or FolgoreR, a 1941 fighter project. Essentially a wing-gunned C.202 powered by a Reggiane Re.104 R.C.40 V-12 (I-F Asso L.121 derivative). Re.104 engine development was cancelled and the C.212R concept was eclipsed by the C.202bis/C.205V Veltro.

C.213 - aka C.213Z 'Zeltro', C.210 derivative powered by an Isotta-Fraschini Zeta R.C.21/60 X-24 engine (as in the SAI-Ambrosini 403 Dardo). Intended as a low-altitiude fighter-bomber, the C.213Z eclipsed an earlier project - the C.208Z fighter with a Zeta R.C.25/60 (as per Reggiane Re.2004 (I) and Caproni-Vizzola F.6MZ).

The C.213 designation had been applied earlier - unofficially - to a C.205N study employing an imported Junkers Jumo 213A-1 engine.

C.214 - aka C.214R Leone, C.205V derivative powered by a Reggiane RE.103 R.C.50-I inverted W-18 engine. One prototype (C.205V conversion).

C.215 - Super Forgore, rebuilt Forgore combining C.202 fuselage/R.A.1000 R.C.41-I engine with C.205V serie I wings.

Armament for the C.215 was 2 x synchronized, cowl-mounted 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT heavy machine guns (400 rpg) and 2 x wing-mounted 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns (500 rpg) firing outside the propeller arc (bringing older Forgore up to late-production C.202 serieIX-XI standards). A projected C.215V ' Veltgore ' to bring older Forgore airframes up to full C.205V standards was not pursued.

C.216 - (Unbuilt Project), aka C.216R Super Pantera, a high-altitude fighter powered by a higher-compression Reggiane Re.103 R.C.57-I engine. The C.216R was to have a hybrid structure - combining the C.206 fuselage with the longer-span wings (and 4-cannon armament) of the  C.207.

C.217 - (Unbuilt Project), aka C.217R Leonessa, another high-altitude fighter - this time powered by a Reggiane Re.103 R.C.100-I engine with a 4-speed supercharger. Based on the C.207 airframe, the wing tips were to be further extended (a la the Ta 152H).

An alternative development was the C.217AQ (for Alta Quota) powered by a Reggiane Re.105 R.C.100-I - essentially an Re.103 engine fitted with a 2-stage, 4-speed centrifugal supercharger.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 27, 2019, 06:23:02 AM
Thanks to GTX for the basis of this concept ...

Super Saetta - The Macchi C.210 Attack-Fighter

The C.210 was the ultimate development of the radial-engined C.200 Saetta. The concept derived from the earlier, Piaggio-powered C.200P and C.200bis. Those prototypes introduced the much larger-diameter Piaggio P.XI and P.XIX radials put available power increases were fairly marginal. [1] No orders followed for a Piaggio-powered derivative but the Regia Aeronautica had realized that even a dedicated fighter-bomber version of the Saetta was going to require more horsepower than available Italian radial engines could provide. And the need for such aircraft for the Corpo di Spedizione Italiano on the Russian Front was becoming critical. As a result, the Ministero dell'Aeronautica made inquiries about the availability of the most powerful German radial engine. [2]

The German BMW 801C engine could deliver 1,560 hp for take-off. Despite having a larger displacement - 41.8 litres vs 38.673 L for the P.XI - the BMW had a smaller frontal area than the Piaggios - with a diameter of 1.29 m versus 1.328 m. Weight was another matter. Whereas dry weight for the P.XI was only 650 kg, the BMW 801 tipped the scales at a hefty 1,012 kg. The trick with a BMW installation was going to be balancing all that extra weight while accommodating the jump in power output. With Aer.Macchi busy with the C.205, design work on the 'BMW Saetta' was handed over to C.200-producer, Breda.

Cavallo Vapore - For Good and for Bad

Design staff at Sesto San Giovanni quickly realized that the standard Saetta airframe could neither balance the BMW nor absorb all that added power. This was no simple re-engining job. Breda's first move was to extend the C.200 rear fuselage in an attempt to counterbalance all that Teutonic iron added up front. A low dorsal addition to the tail fin was also made to help offset propeller torque. Although few finished C.200 fuselage components could be used, such an airframe could be assembled fairly quickly using basic C.200 parts. Work began on assembling what became the C.210 Super Saetta prototype with roll-out occuring in September 1942.

Breda's production of XX serie C.200s was completed in October 1942. Flight testing had just been transferred from the company's Bresso airfield to Guidonia for Regia Aeronautica trials ... but the Ministero dell'Aeronautica was already pushing for a rapid production line turn over to C.210s. As always, flight tests revealed 'bugs' in the design which need attention. Most critically, the production-standard C.210 would have its motor mounts shortened to address balance issues (causing C.210 service pilots to complain of flying with their 'feet in the fire'). Breda designers also draughted a completely new tailplane for the C.210. The fin and rudder closely resembled that of the C.200 but the production Super Saetta's tail was considerably taller.

The flying qualities of the Super Saetta never came close to matching those of its stablemates. Handling was generally 'twitchy' with a tendency to swing dramatically on take-off. Nor did the C.210 quite match its description as a Caccia da Assalto -  with a fixed armament of only two 12.7 mm machine guns and two rather light-weight wing pylons for bombs. Load-carrying was disappointing but, for rapid production, the MdA had rejected Breda's proposal to widen the C.200's wing centre-section for allow a centre-line bomb rack. That said, an unladened C.210 was much faster than its predecessor giving the Super Saetta much better odds at a successful egress once its bombs were gone.

Any disappointment that Regia Aeronautica pilots felt over the Super Saetta were relatively short-lived. After only six months of C.210 production, the MdA decided that Breda's Sesto San Giovanni factory floorspace would be better employed building C.205V Veltro fighters instead.

________________________

[1] The C.200bis' Piaggio P.XIX RC.35 delivered 1,180 hp or 310 hp more than the C.200's Fiat A.74. The C.200P's Piaggio P.XIbis engine put out 1,025, an increase of only 155 hp.

[2] Deliveries of German-made engines like the DB 601A to Italy had been slow but it was hoped that German authorities would be more cooperative since the aircraft in question was intended primarily for use on the Russian Front.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 27, 2019, 10:46:18 AM
Very nice whif fodder there.  I wonder if someone will try to marry the BMW 801 with the C.202 or other inline airframe, using the Fw-190 as something of a guide?  Much as the Ki-61 was modified into the Ki-100.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PantherG on March 27, 2019, 03:33:06 PM
I think, that Mc-200 is better solution for BMW-801, then Mc-202 ....

Apophenia: Your work is just amazing....  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PantherG on March 27, 2019, 07:52:34 PM
I look in my stash..... Mc-200 (Revell) and Fw-190A-8 (Airfix) .... I think, that I try made it .... Mc-210  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 28, 2019, 01:47:26 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 28, 2019, 03:58:32 AM
That's a killer concept and the MC-210CA is a real stunner!

Once again, your rendering of that famous splotchy camo is superb!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 28, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Well, since I have a couple of spare front ends from a pair of Fw190A-3s, converted to Fw190TLs, and several Mc.202 kits, I'm going to look at blending the two.  Perhaps done as a C.211 prototype, inspired by the C.210?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 29, 2019, 03:03:02 AM
Zowie ... it would be too cool to see the C.210 and C.211 both rendered in styrene!  :smiley:

Macchi C.205V Engine Alternatives - The C.214R Leone

Aeronautica Macchi had no manner of luck with modern aero-engines. The DB 601/Monsoni was ideal for the C.202 Folgore but supplies were always limited - from both Alfa Romeo and Daimler-Benz. Then came the more powerful DB 605A-1 and its domestically-built version - the Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58-I Tifone - for which there was even greater competition among Italian airframe manufacturers. When the serie 6 fighters were announced by the Ministero dell'Aeronautica, the chronic engine shortage problem looked set to be repeated. Alternative high-powered inline aero-engines were needed.

While Dott. Ing. Mario Castoldi tweaked his C.206 and C.207 designs to meet the serie 6 fighter requirements, his assistant ing. Ermanno Bazzocchi prepared the in-production C.205V Veltro for possible alternative engines. The Ministero dell'Aeronautica had mooted a serie 4 fighter contest for in-production aircraft reworked to take a 1,575 hp Reggiane Re.103 R.C.50-I engine. [1] This new OMI Reggiane engine was an 18 Cilindra M - that is, an 18-cylinder 'M' or inverted 'W' powerplant. At 920 kg, the Re.103 falls right between the C.205's Tifone and the C.207's DB 603A in dry weight.

It was quickly concluded that a standard C.205V airframe could just accommodate the bulkier Reggiane engine. So, ing. Bazzocchi oversaw the conversion of a damaged C.205V (which had nosed-over on soft ground). This work was fairly quickly accomplished and the converted C.214R (for Re.103) - as the new serie 4 fighter would be redesignated - was rolled out at Macchi's Varese-Schiranna plant in mid-April 1944. Manufacturer's trials were complete and the C.214R prototype was due to be delivered to the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana. However, the C.214R Leone (Lion) prototype was destroyed in the Macchi experimental assembly shed by Allied bombing on 01 May 1944.

Testing of the C.214R Leone prototype had revealed no major problems (other than some nose-heaviness) by the time of its destruction. Aer.Macchi's enthusiasm for the project had waned somewhat however. The MdA had instructed OMI Reggiane to deliver a pre-production Re.103 to Macchi but Reggiane was anything but co-operative with its Varese rival. [2] In the meantime, ing. Bazzocchi had turned his attention to another engine conversion - the C.213Z.

(To be continued ...)

________________________

[1] The serie 4 grouping may seem anomolous. This designation number was a 'left-over' from an initial plan to use the Re.104 engine - a fuel-injected V-12 derived from the Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 R.C.40. The Re.104 was intended to replace DB 601A/Monsoni in Regia Aeronautica service. However, over time, the Re.104 V-12 was seen as underpowered and replaced in planning by the larger, W-18 Re.103.

[2] OMI Reggiane's priority was to perfect the Re.103 R.C.50-I engine for its own Re.2004 fighter - a serie 4 rival to the C.214R Leone.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 29, 2019, 03:30:52 AM
Beautiful and quite plausible.  Ermano Bazzochi was a nice guy, I met him when I was over there in 1972.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 29, 2019, 05:04:09 AM
Once again those are a real feast for the eyes and I've never seen mottling rendered better!

Extra points for an inverted 'V'. Always extra points for the inverted 'V'!  8)

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 31, 2019, 03:45:35 AM
Evan: Wow ... you come up with the coolest anecdotes  :smiley: What a career you've had!

I read somewhere that, after the Armistice, Castoldi tried a re-direction smear campaign, attempting to paint Bazzochi as the Fascisti colloborator. Alas, Mario couldn't anyone who was that gullible!

Brian: "Always extra points for the inverted 'V'!"  A man after my own heart  :D

Does an X-24 qualify as as half an inverted 'V'? ... I'm sucking up for extra points with this post  ;)
_________________________________

Another Stab at the  'Addestramento Caccia' - The Macchi C.209

The Macchi C.209 project has been described as a Isotta-Fraschini Delta-powered C.202 or as a C.203D redesigned for metal construction. It was neither really. But there was a relationship between the C.209 and the earlier C.203D...

When the Ministero dell'Aeronautica transfered the C.203G/C.203D project to SAI Ambrosini, Aeronautica Macchi could not argue with the logic. After all, Macchi was overstretched while SAI was under-employed. However, many at the Varese design office saw a conspiracy brewing. Ambrosini was quick to acknowledge any downsides to its C.203D demonstrator but equally quick to talk-up its own SAI.7 design as a potential replacement. Those in the Varese design office resolved to take back their original concept. The result was the Macchi C.209 'addestramento caccia' (fighter-trainer) proposal.

Best described as a re-design of the C.203D, the C.209 retained a modified version of SAI's wooden wing structure. To save weight, Varese eliminated a rib on either side of the centre line and introduced new, shortened main undercarriage legs. The metal fuselage was based on that of the C.202 but shortened through a forward bay being removed. The cockpit being relocated, retaining the same position relative to the engine bay but moved aft relative to the rear fuselage. The tailplane were standard Folgore components.

Top Macchi's detailed mockup for the proposed C.209 fighter-trainer

Projected performance for the C.209 made it ideal for the needs of the Scuola di Addestramento Bombardamento e Caccia but did not realistically address Italy's crippling shortage of aircraft-quality aluminium. As a result, the MsA could not approve of the C.209 and, in the end, the fighter-trainer contract did go to SAI Ambrosini for a re-engined, 2-seat SAI.7. The Macchi C.209 proposal was quietly abandoned ... for now.

Doppia forma a 'V' - Isotta-Fraschini's X-24 and the Macchi 'Zeltros'

Another, unrelated Macchi project powered by an Isotta-Fraschini engine was the C.208. Dubbed 'Zeltro', this project was to mount Isotta-Fraschini's radical Zeta X-24 engine [1] - in its R.C.25/60 form - in the Macchi C.205V airframe. The difficulties involved in fitting this rather bulky engine to the svelte C.205V fuselage convinced the MdA that the C.208 project was unrealistic. Macchi answered this criticism with a quick redesign employing the 'chunkier' C.210 airframe.

The Ministero dell'Aeronautica responded more positively to this 'C.210Z' proposal and commissioned a prototype conversion. Fortunately, a Breda-built C.210 fuselage had been delivered to Varese for stress testing. Combined with a pair of C.205V wings, the re-designated C.213Z airframe was all but complete. In the meantime, the MdA recommended a change in basic role from straight fighter to fighter-bomber (reasoning that the multi-cylindered Zeta would be more resilient when battle-damaged. Accordingly, the powerplant was changed to the lower-rated R.C.21/60 model. However, I-F's Zeta programme was not going well. An 'empty' engine block was delivered to Varese for installation trials but, in the end, Aer.Macchi never did receive an operational R.C.21/60 Zeta engine.

Bottom Prototype C.213Z 'Zeltro' fighter-bomber conversion with a 'dummy' engine fitted

______________________________________

[1] The Zeta X-24 engine effectively consisted of conjoined Gamma V-12 on a common crankcase. This arrangement was also tried by foreign engine-makers but none with any real success. Isotta-Fraschini also delivered a 'twin Delta in the form of the 52.5 L Sigma X-24 but, by then, Aer.Macchi had lost faith in such complex engines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 31, 2019, 05:27:35 PM
It takes a keen eye and buckets of talent to render engine detail like that!

Great stuff, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2019, 02:23:17 AM
Thanks Brian ... I don't seem to be able to resist those under-the-hood-gubbins  ;)

'Ragazzo di Corso' - The Fiat V-16-Powered Macchi 'C.204/A.38' Project

By the summer of 1939, ing. Mario Castoldi was considering a planned Fiat V-16 engine as a potential powerplant for the Macchi C.204. In its original iteration, this Fiat A.38 engine was an upright V-16 related to the 1939 Fiat AS.8 racing engine. To produce the A.38, Fiat's ing. Tranquillo Zerbi had simplified his AS.8 racing engine. Compared with the AS.8, the A.38 had a revised bore and stroke [1] as well as a much lower compression ratio.

The adaptation of the Macchi airframe was not a simple one due to the length of the Fiat engine. However, such an installation appeared achievable with some re-arrangement of internal equipment. Although long, the new Fiat A.38 engine was compact in height and width compared with the existing Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 V-12 which was also being considered for the Macchi C.204.

The so-called 'C.204/A.38' first appeared in early May 1939 Aer.Macchi drawings. These revealed considerable deviations from the contemporary 'C.204/L.121' concept. Whereas the latter was essentially a C.202 airframe with different engine mounts and cowling for the Asso L.121 engine, the longer Fiat V-16 required the firewall to be moved aft. This was feasible because the compact frontal area of the A.38 allowed this engine to sit atop the undercarriage wheel bays and wing structure. Castoldi believed that, with the engine set as far back as possible, manoeuvrability would be as good as - if not better than - the C.202 Folgore.

Despite the aft-positioned engine, it quickly became apparent that nose-heaviness was going to be an issue. For 'Fase di progettazione Ia' ('Design Phase Ia'), notional work was begun on redressing that nascent imbalance. An obvious start was moving the convenient but drag-inducing under-engine radiator bath aft to below the rear fuselage. A more radical possibility was to lengthen the rear fuselage itself. If necessary, it was considered reasonable to enact both changes. Some design work was also begun on armament options - since cowl-guns were not practical in the 'C.204/A.38' design.

Unfortunately, the 'C.204/A.38' never had a chance to prove its mettle. By July 1939, Fiat Motori [2] had abandoned the complex and weighty reduction gearbox for contra-rotating propellers. The A.38 R.C.42 would, instead, drive a 3-bladed variable-pitch propeller. This raised concerns as to whether the C.204 airframe's tail was large enough to deal with 'propeller torque'. That was a moot point. Before design work could be completed on the 'C.204/A.38 FdP Ia', Fiat Motori advised the Varese design office that work was being discontinued on the upright A.38 engine. In the absence of a viable Fiat rival, the 'C.204/L.121' was the model which would see production and active service with the Regia Aeronautica.

(To be continued ...)
_______________________________

[1] The AS.8 racing engine had a 'square' bore and stroke of 140 x 140mm. Bore and stroke dimensions for the A.38 fighter engine was 138 x 145 mm.

[2] In its full form, S.A. Fiat Motori d'Aviazione. Fiat Motori had facilities at Torino and Firenze.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 02, 2019, 06:16:12 AM
Contra-props and an Art-Deco style cowling for teh win!!!

Great stuff, apophenia and oddly prescient as I was just looking at how well an He-51 engine works on a Veltro.

Brain da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 04, 2019, 04:25:24 AM
Cheers Brian. A little more conventional on the cowling this time ...

Topsy-Turvy - the Upsidedown Fiat A.38 IV-16 Engine

Fiat Motori's work on the A.38 engine was not abandoned completely. Instead, ing. Antonio Fessia and Carlo Bona undertook a complete revision of the new Fiat engine. This major redesign was need to meet a new-found Regia Aeronautica's sudden preference for invertita aero-engines for fighters. In its early 1940 form, the A.38 was duly inverted and had its potential for contra-rotating propellers restored. In the absence of detailed information, the Varese design office planned for a simple 'inversion' of the original, upright A.38.

For a straighforward 'inversion' of the original Fiat V-16 engine, some assumptions from the 'C.204/A.38' Fase di progettazione Ia would hold. The thrust-line would, of course be lower but only slightly since the smaller-frontal-area engine would be mounted a little higher in the airframe. To ensure ground clearance, it seemed safe to assume smaller-diameter 3-bladed propellers. The contra-props would also answer Aer.Macchi concerns about 'propeller torque' and suggested that the tailplane inherited from the C.200 would continue to be adequate.

With its revised 'motore invertito', the 'C.204/A.38' became the 'C.202/A.38'. This incorporated the planned revisions to the 'C.204/A.38' design - including the rearward movement of the radiator bath. For a prototype 'C.202/A.38', it was thought that re-arrangement of C.202 internal equipment and some lead counter-weights would be sufficient to balance its centre-of-gravity. For a production 'C.202/A.38', a lengthened rear fuselage was planned to offset the weight of the lengthy Fiat IV-16 engine. Alas, all this planning at Varese went out the window when Fiat Motori announced another design change.

For the production-model A.38, the supercharger was to be relocated to reduce overall length. Rather than have the supercharger directly behind the engine block, this compressor was now to be mounted below the hindmost cylinder heads. [1] Such an arrangement would greatly complicated supercharger drive but Fessia and Bona thought this worthwhile to reduce length. Unfortunately for Aer.Macchi, that bulky supercharger and its air intakes would now be located precisely where the main undercarriage wheels of the C.202 were housed when retracted. In its late Spring 1940 form, the Fiat A.38 engine could simply not be fitted to the C.202 airframe without a massive redesign effort.

Top Fase di Progettazione II 'C.202/A.38' project as envisioned at the prototype stage. Note original, 'short' C.202-style rear fuselage.

Bottom 'C.202/A.38' project as envisioned as an in-service production machine. The rear fuselage has been lengthened but no conclusions had yet been drawn about how the Fiat-powered fighter was to be armed.

(To be continued ...)

_______________________________

[1] It was also revealed that the 2-bladed propellers were being retained. Although not as critical as the relocated supercharger, the longer prop blades raised questions about ground clearance. Would the original C.200-style undercarriage legs be long enough?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 04, 2019, 05:00:07 AM
Now that's sweeet! Love the contra-props and you went with the perfect color scheme on the bottom one!

A feast for the eyes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 05, 2019, 01:22:49 AM
One of those would look good as a floatplane racer. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 05, 2019, 11:17:39 AM
Beautiful renderings and great story!!  Be most interesting to watch the continued evolution here.  I can't help but wonder if we might see a single jet engine-powered version, something analogous to the Yak-15.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 06, 2019, 06:55:39 AM
Thanks folks. I've been pondering something Jumo-powered as well Evan - but haven't settled on anything yet.  Meanwhile ...
_______________________________

'Programma di Pinocchio' - The Macchi C.222 Progetta

For ing. Mario Castoldi, the 'C.202/A.38' was the breaking point for the ever-changing Fiat IV-16 engine. All remaining A.38 design work was fobbed off on ing. Ermanno Bazzocchi, Castoldi's assistant. Bazzocchi recognized that a larger airframe was necessary. Only by greatly stretching the C.202 fuselage, could it possibly accommodate the Fiat A.38 with its underslung supercharger. With the resulting structural weight gain, enlarging the wing area also became essential.

To increase wing area, ing. Bazzocchi came up with a comparatively simple solution. A new centre section would be inserted beneath the fuselage. The existing C.202 wing would then be attached to this new centre section as outer wing panels. The fuselage used many basic C.202 individual components but, in finished form, was much lengthened. Two fuselage forms were proposed. For Fase di progettazione (Design Phase) IVa, the cockpit was maintained in the C.202 position to maximize pilot visibility. Synchronization gear would be devised in order to fire twin 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns through the contra-rotating propellers.

For Fase di progettazione IVb, the cockpit was moved aft (a part of the fuselage stretch being in front of 'the office'). The purpose of the FdP IVb arrangement was to accommodate a pair of syncrhronized 20 mm MG151/20 cannons in place of the Breda-SAFAT cowl guns. Consideration was also given to incorporating a sliding canopy to improve pilot view on take-off and landing. But, otherwise, Fase di progettazione IVb was identical to FdP IVa. As the latter represented less development time, a prototype was ordered under the new designation - Macchi C.222.

The prototype C.222 was constructed at Varese using as many C.202 parts and components as possible. Work on this prototype progressed at a rather leisurely pace since Fiat Motori was yet to produce a flight-worthy A.38 powerplant. In the interim, a 'dummy' engine was installed to finalize anciliary equipment placement. In the meantime, design work continued at Varese on other A.38-powered Macchi fighters. The Fase di progettazione V was similar to the FdP IVb concept but incorporated an entirely new wing. As with the earlier phases, the FdP V had a separate centre-section but the outer panels were new. These panels were of similar outline to the C.202 originals but had a broader chord for increased wing area.

Intercettore a Potenza Mista - Bazzocchi's Mixed-Power Interceptor

The Fase di progettazione V was not pursued but it led directly to the FdP VII - a mixed-power concept interceptor. [1] This aircraft retained the Fiat A.38 but this engine was to be modified with a power take-off at its rear. An extension shaft would then drive a motore a reazione devised by another Milanese firm, Tecnomasio Italiano-Brown Boveri. This TIBB MG (for Motore Getto) would be ignited for take-off and climb before being disengaged with an extension shaft clutch. The TIBB MG was dubbed a motorjet to distinguish it from similar work being done by Secondo Campini. [2]

Much to Mario Castoldi's chagrin, the FdP VII concept was assigned the working designation MB.222MG, with the suffix honouring the work of ing. Bazzocchi. From the cockpit forward, the MB.222MG strongly resembled the FdP V. However, the rear fuselage was changed utterly. Traditionally shapely Macchi lines gave way to a portly fuselage with side air intakes to feed the TIBB MG powerplant. To ensure stability, Castoldi's elegant tailplane design was replaced by twin fins.

It was envisioned that the MB.222MG would retain the FdP V's planned wing armament of four 20 mm cannons but cowl guns were dispensed with to save weight. Annular kerosene fuel tanks for the TIBB MG surrounded that powerplant and consideration was given to carrying additional fuel in wing-mounted drop tanks. The result was intended to provide a fast-climbing but relatively short-range interceptor to counter Allied bombers in Italian skies. As with the more conventional Macchi C.222, the MB.222MG ran up against Fiat Motori's inability to deliver a single functioning A.38 engine - let alone one fitted with a rear power take-off for an extension shaft.

Both 'caccia 222' projects limped along in the hope than Fiat Motori might follow through on a promised A.38 replacement. [3] That never happened and both interceptor projects stalled. Perhaps appropriately, both the incomplete C.222 airframe in storage and all 'caccia 222' drawings and calculations were destroyed in the Allied bombing raid Macchi's Varese works of 01 May 1944.

_____________________________

[1] The Fase di progettazione VI was to have been an extended-span, high-altitude variant of the FdP V interceptor.

[2] More on how this TIBB powerplant came to be in the next post.

[3] The 47.6 litre A.48 R.C.20-60-I Burrasca (Gale) IV-16 was to be based upon Fiat Motori's license-built DB 605 - being effectively an RA.1050 RC.58-I Tifone with four extra cylinders. The overall failure of the A.38 programme aslo put paid to another Macchi project - the twin-engined C.301.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 06, 2019, 10:31:07 AM
Unique whiffs and most interesting ones; certainly some tempting possibilities.   That's beautiful "smoke ring" camouflage, too; you're a real artist with that.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ptdockyard on April 06, 2019, 09:19:10 PM
I am getting to the party late here...would love to see more Italian carrier planes like whffs of the Fiat G50bis A/N, Fiat 201 and Fiat G57.

(http://i42.tinypic.com/qyfxvp.jpg)


Dave G
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 07, 2019, 04:32:40 AM
I'm with you there.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Hardrada55 on April 07, 2019, 08:46:18 AM
me too!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 08, 2019, 05:00:25 AM
C.204/A38 front end reminds me of the unbuilt, V-16 powered Rider-Miller:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-Tw87xDP/0/6051d8d3/O/RIDER-MILLER_01.png)

More here:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.msg60639#msg60639 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.msg60639#msg60639)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2019, 04:16:20 AM
C.204/A38 front end reminds me of the unbuilt, V-16 powered Rider-Miller:


Someday, a 'Keith Rider Fighter' just has to be whiffed out of that unbuilt beauty!

And for those who haven't read Jon's Harry Miller's V-16s ... thread yet, it is highly recommended  :smiley:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3909.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2019, 05:37:39 AM
Playing with turbogetti Macchi fighters...

While designing the mixed-power Macchi MB.222MG, ing. Ermanno Bazzocchi was informed of work progressing on autonomously-powered turbogetti concepts. Tecnomasio Italiano-Brown Boveri was quite aware of the limitations of its TIBB MG motore getto powerplant. Through its BBC Mannheim subsidiary, it was also reasonably well informed about German progress on genuine turbojet engines. TIBB's first domestic turbojet concept - the TIBB TG.1 - was a conservative, centrifugal-compressor type.

The TIBB TG.1 was designed more as a booster engine for use on existing piston-engined aircraft. Despite that, the Varese design office draughted a purely jet-powered derivative of the Macchi C.202. The C.202/TG.1 replaced the piston engine with two diminutive TIBB TG.1 jets mounted side-by-side in the nose. Each jet exhaust was to vent alongside the fuselage. The horizontal tailplane was raised halfway up a revised tail fin to clear the jet efflux. Otherwise few changes were envisioned to the C.202 airframe. Armament was to be 2 (or 4) 12.7 mm cowl guns plus a central heavy-calibre cannon. The latter weapon was in an early design stage but calibre was being narrowed down to 25 mm and 40 mm.

Top Macchi C.202/TG.1 'Folgetti' concept, 2 x TIBB TG.1 turbojets, armed here with twin 12.7 mm cowl guns and a short-barrelled Breda-SAFAT 25 mm

When the C.202/TG.1 concept was viewed by officials from Guidonia and from TIBB itself, a number of flaws were revealed. Centro sperimentali weapons experts voiced concern about muzzle blast from the heavy gun being vented so close to the engine air intake. TIBB engineers concerred but were more worried about the effects of the jet efflux so close to the cockpit. Resonance effects on the aluminium airframe from the jet exhaust were also seen as an issue. All of this became of purely academic interest when Macchi was informed that Tecnomasio Italiano-Brown Boveri had begun work on a much more powerful turbojet - the TIBB TG.4.

The C.202/TG.1 concept was quickly abandoned in favour of a new C.202/TG.4 design. That designation was probably something of a misnomer since, other than the wings, little would remain of the original C.202 airframe. Instead, ing. Bazzocchi took the MB.222MG as his starting point. Basically, the axial-compressor TIBB TG.4 engine would be installed in the MB.222MG rear fuselage. Without a piston engine in the nose, the rest of the airframe could be scaled-down. 'Long' and 'short' nosed versions were planned - the short-nosed mounting a heavy-calibre cannon, the long-nose housing up to eight 12.7 mm machine guns or five 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons.

On review, the C.202/TG.4 concept was given high marks by TIBB engineers. However, experience with the Campini-Caproni C.C.2 showed Guidonia officials the downsides of 'tail-dragger' jet airplanes. That, and the amount of airframe redesign required, put paid to the C.202/TG.4 concept.

Bottom Macchi C.202/TG.4 concept in 'short-nosed' form. 1 x TIBB TG.4 turbojet, armed here with twin 12.7 mm cowl guns and a long-barrelled Scotti 25 mm autocannon.

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 11, 2019, 06:21:57 AM
Now this is an interesting twist!

I've never seen that famous smoke ring camo done better.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 11, 2019, 10:14:47 AM
Very nice!!  I'm surprised they didn't consider a Yak-15 style of engine installation for the TG.4.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 12, 2019, 05:47:38 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: The Yak-15 layout would have been looked at but was scuppered by the Centro sperimentali's negative view of 'tail-dragger' jetplanes after the Guidonia trials of the Campini-Caproni C.C.2. How Varese got around this problem will be coming up next ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 12, 2019, 10:12:16 AM
Cool!!  Justo Miranda's Unknown! #5 has his speculation on the RE.2007 and related Caproni Reggiane jet iarcraft, including a Re.2006R that uses such an approach.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 14, 2019, 04:29:05 AM
Events and preferences had passed by the Macchi C.202/TG.4 concept. Inspiration for Macchi's next turbogetto fighter came from a failed SAI Ambrosini concept. While the C.202/TG.4 concept was being finalized, across town, ing. Stefanutti was preparing a turbojet light figher design based upon the SAI.207 wing. [1] Radical elements of the Stefanutti design included a prone pilot position and a dorsal mounting for the jet engine (whose exhaust passed between the elements of a V-tail). This unsolicited SAI.304 Cinquedea (Short Sword) design was rejected because the Regia Aeronautica had no light jet fighter requirement. The Centro sperimentali also had concerns about its unconventional tailplane. Ermanno Bazzocchi, on the other hand, saw promise in the general layout.

At the Varese design office, ing. Bazzocchi quickly sketched out a fresh Macchi turbogetto concept. This new design generally followed Stefanutti's layout but moved the wing to a more aerodynamic mid-fuselage position. Official concerns about Stefanutti's V-tail were ameliorated with the adoption of a more conventional twin fins and rudders arrangement. The new Bazzocchi design was also somewhat bigger than the Ambrosini, having been based upon a larger turbogetto type. [2]  Engine-makers Tecnomasio Italiano-Brown Boveri had been tweaking their axial-flow turbogetto design.

The new TIBB motore a reazione was the TG.6. This engine introduced a 7-stage axial compressor derived from BBC Mannheim's work for BMW's TL 109-003 turbojet but was otherwise a direct evolution of the preceeding TIBB TG.4. [3] Other than extending the length of the engine and adding some dry weight, this made the TG.6 a relatively familiar quantity to Macchi's Varese design office. That left Varese with detail design work on the airframe. The wing was essentially unchanged from the C.202/C.205 piston-engined fighters. However, by positioning the wing mid-fuselage, the standard Macchi fighter undercarriage could not be used. Rather than inserting a new wing centre section, the design team elected to modified that undercarriage.

The undercarriage legs were modified with links which pulled the main wheels into a near-vertical position when retracted. New wheel bays were devised to accommodate the vertical retracted wheels directly in front of the forward spar. With new streamlining doors retracted, the main wheels would be completely enclosed once retracted. Between these retracted wheels would pass the barrel of one of the Regia Aeronautica's new heavy-calibre aircraft guns. This gun was held in place, in part by a new, central fuselage keel which also helped support the turbojet powerplant.

Bazzocchi believed that the new engine position was placed high enough that the previous concerns by the Centro sperimentali about jet-powered tail-draggers had been addressed. The Ministero dell'Aeronautica was inclined to agree and lent its support to this new C.202/TG.6 project. Detailed design work proceeded apace at Varese but it was all for nought. At the end of April 1943, the TIBB assembly shed and semi-completed prototype TIBB TG.6 engine was completely destroyed by Allied bombing. Ironically, poor weather had thwarted the bombers in bombing the Macchi plant at Varese. However, one B-17 with engine problems jettisoned its bombload. The USAAF bomber crew cannot have known that their emergency action would also end Italy's wartime turbogetto programme.

________________________________________

[1] During the design process, the wing basis was changed to that of the related SAI.407 Dardo with its built-in cannon armament.

[2] The SAI.304 had been designed around the smaller, centrifugal-flow TIBB TG.2A - effectively a slightly enlarged TG.1. When centrifugal-compressor turbogetto development ended, the SAI.304 concept died with its intended powerplant.

[3] The 'missing' TG.5 designation had been applied to an unsuccessful attempt by TIBB to take over the cancelled Heinkel HeS 30 engine. When German authorities denied this 'technology transfer' to Italy, TIBB chose to develop the 5-stage TG.4 into the 7-stage TG.6.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 14, 2019, 04:50:29 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 14, 2019, 05:07:39 AM
Great backstory and concepts, makes more sense than what Ing. Longhi peddled after the war about his efforts at Caproni-Reggiane.

I did catch a word drop, "...completely by Allied bombing." should be "...completely destroyed by Allied bombing."
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on April 14, 2019, 04:21:25 PM
Well,I have to catch up,but Macchi MB 222 MG and C 210 caught my attention instantly.
You were productive  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 19, 2019, 05:31:01 AM
Of possible relevance to recent creations:
(http://imgur.com/0NsE81l.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 19, 2019, 05:43:07 AM
Maybe also a version with a rocket in the tail similar to the La-7R:

(http://ourairports.biz/img/1247/image180_6.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/VVS1/La7R-13.jpg)

Maybe a German rocket could be used.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 19, 2019, 06:11:38 AM
Many thanks folks. And, Evan, proofing is always much appreciated!

Greg: That Reggiane Re.2005R with the shaft-driven axial compressor was exactly what I was going for  :D

____________________________________

Tipo Spagna - The Spanish Macchis

At the conclusion of the Spanish Civil War, the most modern fighter aircraft available to the Ejército del Aire was the Messerschmitt Bf 109. Attempts to organize Spanish licensed-production of the German fighter would slip from Emil to Gustav models without success. Germany was willing to support its erstwhile ally but simply could not spare technicians, tools, or critical components to help begin production in Spain. In the meantime, Hispano Aviación of Seville was approached with a proposal by Aeronautica Macchi via the Italian Air Attache in Madrid. If Hispano would license-build Macchi C.202 fighters in Spain for the Ejército del Aire, Italy would purchase surplus production for use by the Regia Aeronautica.

A deal was struck in early 1942. Hispano would build the fighters with Macchi's assistance and, to circumvent Spanish neutrality rules, would provide component-knock-down airframes to Italy. [1] With the agreement in place, sample C.202 airframes were shipped from Milan to Seville to act as pattern aircraft. With tooling also shipped from Italy, C.202 production ramped up fairly quickly in Spain - where the fighter was redesignated HA-1202-D1L by Hispano Aviación. Local production was partly delayed by Ministerio del Aire stipulations. Both the MdA and the Ejército del Aire regarded the Macchi as interim equipment pending domestic production of the preferred Messerschmitt fighter.

Top Hispano Aviación HA-1202-D1L fighter concept as first envisioned by Spain's Ministerio del Aire.

A part of the production order agreement, the Ministerio del Aire required that Hispano Aviación incorporate certain Bf 109 components into the Macchi design to provide a degree of commonality between two future EdA fighter types. This was to include the VDM propeller with Bf 109 spinner, oil filter, Elektron alloy engine mounts, Revi gun sight, Luftwaffe R/T equipment, and other German parts. These changes were duly incorporated into Hispano drawings. The difficulty lay in promised German deliveries failing to appear. As a result, all early Spanish-built Macchi airframes - locally designated HA-1202 - were shipped by coastal freighter from Seville to SAI Ambrosini in Milan for final assembly. The first examples were completed as C.204Sp (Spagna) before increased engine deliveries from Alfa-Romeo allowed SAI to switch to C.202Sp production exclusively. [2]

Italy's shortage of DB 601A and Alfa-built Monsoni engines was nothing next to Spain's powerplant conundrum. Germany had promised deliveries of 200 Daimler Benz engines - first DB 601As, then, DB 601Ns, and finally DB 605As. None arrived - wartime Luftwaffe requirements taking precedence. Since the HA-1202 airframe could be completed as a C.202 or C.204, Aer.Macchi approached the Ministero dell'Aeronautica on Hispano Aviación's behalf. Could Italy supply Hispano with surplus Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 V-12 engines? The L.121 R.C.40 V-12 was less powerful than Spain's preferred DB 601 engine but the resulting Hispano HA-1212-I1L fighter would be a vast improvement over the Ejército del Aire's current Fiat C.R.32bis biplane fighters!

Unfortunately, Isotta-Fraschini was ending L.121 production to focus on growing demand for air-cooled Delta engine demand. A few  Alfa-Romeo and Fiat were barely able to meet Italian demand for license-built DB 601 and DB 605 engines. A handful of Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 R.C.41-I did reach Seville but these were mainly used for flight-testing Italy-bound airframes - each engine being installed and then removed again from dozens of Hispano-built airframes. [3] Beyond that, Italy could supply no DB 601-type engines to Spain. A scheme evolved to follow Fiat Motori's example and license-build the DB 605A in Spain. Some preparation was made to begin Spanish production - as the ENMASA Epsilon - but, with Spain still recovering from the devastation of its Civil War, this proved unrealistic.

Desparate times call for desparate measures and Spain's available modern aero-engine were surveyed again. ENMASA pushed the Beta - its Wright Cyclone copy - but this large-diameter radial was considered a poor match for the Macchi airframe. [4] As an ad hoc solution to Spain's chronic engine shortage, Dott. Ing. Mario Castoldi arranged for the Regia Aeronautica to release surplus Macchi C.201ter components stored at Varese-Schiranna and Sesto San Giovanni. The Ministero dell'Aeronautica also agreed to redirect matching numbers of 840 hp Fiat A.74 RC.38 radial engines. Thus, Hispano Aviación was able to complete a run of 16 HA-1201-F1L Saeta (Dart) fighter-bombers which were analogous to the Italian C.201ter. With no other options, the Ejército del Aire accepted the HA-1201-F1L into service as the C4B. The C4Bs were deployed to Spanish Morocco to replace worn-out Heinkel He 112 - much to the disconcertion of EdA fighter pilots who dubbed their unwelcome new mounts Burritos.

Bottom Hispano Aviación HA-1201-F1L - An EdA C4F 'Burrito' fighter-bomber of 1a Escuadra, Grupo 27 at Sania Ramel in Spanish Morocco, June 1945. Note the Falagist symbol on the forward fuselage - used here as a personal marking.

In the summer of 1944, the engine-supply situation eased slightly with the first German deliveries. Hispano Aviación received 30 ex-Luftwaffe DB 601A powerplants which had been removed from war-weary Bf 109E fighters. From this delivery, Hispano's engine shop was able to produce 23 fully-airworthy engines. These engines powered 20 HA-1202-D2L fighters which, fitted with Macchi-supplied cowlings and Piaggio propellers - looked very like a standard C.202 fighter of the Regia Aeronautica. The 20 HA-1202-D2Ls were delivered to the Ejército del Aire between October and December of 1944. These HA-1202-D2Ls were used for pilot and ground crew familiarization in anticipation of more-powerful, DB 605A-powered HA-1205-D1L fighters. In a now-familiar pattern, such engines never arrived in Spain. No HA-1205-D1L fighter was ever completed and the proposed DB 601-powered 2-seat HA-2202-D2L advanced trainers were cancelled outright.

(To be continued ...)
_________________________

[1] CKD airframes would allow Macchi to quickly assemble aircraft in Italy while Spain could claim to only be supplying 'parts'.

[2] The 'Sp' for tipo Spagna (Spanish type) suffix was a Ministero dell'Aeronautica designation. The Regia Aeronautica used the 'Sp' suffix only in procurement documents. Otherwise, the SAI Ambrosini-assembled aircraft were simply assigned standard serie numbers regardless of an airframes origin.

[3] For record-keeping purposes, airframes temporarily fitted with R.A.1000 engines were designated HA-1202-A2L.

[4] The ENMASA Beta was also in high demand as the powerplant for the trimotor CASA C-202 transport, a Spanish-built Junkers Ju 52/3m.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 19, 2019, 06:43:22 AM
 :smiley:

I wonder...maybe the Spanish HA-1205s could get Merlins (or even Griffons) post war similar to the real world HA-1112-M1Ls or Fiat G.59s... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 19, 2019, 08:12:05 AM
A very logical evolution captured with incredible skill and panache`.

Very well done, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 21, 2019, 05:54:22 AM
I wonder...maybe the Spanish HA-1205s could get Merlins (or even Griffons) post war similar to the real world HA-1112-M1Ls or Fiat G.59s... ;)

Wait for it ...  ;)
____________________


'Hisso-Hispano' - Hispano Aviación's HS-12Y Halcón Project

Spain's Ejército del Aire was less than thrilled to have the Fiat-powered HA-1201-F1L 'Burro' fighter-bomber foisted upon it. But, until German engines arrived, what choice did the EdA have? Hispano Aviación, of course, continued its search for alternative powerplants for its engineless airframes. One option was a small number of HS-12Y engines available in Spain. Developed by Hispano Aviación's French affiliate, Hispano-Suiza, these 'upright' V-12 engines were little more powerful than the Fiat radial. However, the HS-12Y had to potential to carry a 20 mm motor cannon. The EdA was luke-warm on the concept but Hispano received a modest contract from the Ministerio del Aire to develop an HS-12Y-powered prototype.

The HS-12Ycrs engine was roughly the same size as the Isotta-Fraschini Asso L.121 powering the Macchi C.204. As such, no major hurdles were anticipated in fitting the French engine to existing Hispano Aviación-built airframes. [1] The demonstrator prototype was designated HA-1204-H1L by the factory and dubbed Halcón (Hawk). Painted in the rather garish splinter scheme camouflage then favoured by the Ejército del Aire, the HA-1204-H1L was rolled out of Hispano Aviación assembly shed at the Triana plant at the end of June 1944. This aircraft received full EdA national markings but, in fact, the prototype spent its entire life as a company trials aircraft. The arrival of used German DB 601A in Spain around the time of the HA-1204-H1L's first flight doomed the Halcón - or 'Hisso-Hispano' - project.

Top HS-12Y-powered Hispano Aviación HA-1204-H1L demonstrator, Seville, October 1944

When the Germans failed to deliver promised DB 605A engines, [2] the Ejército del Aire was forced to look more favourably upon Hispano-Suiza powerplants. Unlike other neighbours, France was willing to export the latest Hispano-Suiza engine types to Spain. This led to the Hispano Aviación HA-1215-K1L powered by imported French HS-12Z-17 engines generating 1,600 hp for take-off. Hispano Aviación provided the Ejército del Aire with 65 HA-1215-K1Ls - 40 being new-builds while 25 were conversions from HA-1202-D2Ls (or completed airframes which had been earmarked to be finished as HA-1205-D1Ls). In service, these aircraft were dubbed C-4K Buchóns (Kites).

The Caza-interceptores españoles become Ground-Pounders

By the time of its appearance in EdA service, the HA-1215-K1L was becoming passé. There were also a shortage of 20 mm Hispano-Suiza moteur cannones. Accordingly, it was decided that these planned fighter-interceptors should be reassigned as fighter-bombers. Buchón fixed armament would consist of three 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns - one acting as motor-gun and two wing-mounted. [3] Wing racks for bombs or fuel tanks would also be fitted as standard. In 1952, wing-mounted rocket packs for eight Pilatus 80mm rockets were adopted.

In the meantime, Hispano Aviación began work on a 2-seat advanced trainer version of the HS-12Z-17-powered Macchi. The prototype HA-2215-K1L was completed using the semi-finished HA-2202-D2L 2-seater airframe. Initially, the prototype had framed canopies similar to those of the single-seaters. However, this glazing was replaced by production-standard clear-blown canopies prior to HA-2215-K1L service trials. For the 2-seater, armament consisted of a single 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun in the starboard wing. When wing racks were fitted they were normally employed to mount extra fuel tanks. However, the HA-2215-K1L racks could carry practice bombs.

Bottom Hispano Aviación HA-2215-K1L prototype, EdA service trials, Seville, 1951. The camo scheme and 'reloj de arena' (hour glass) disc markings are anomalous (by this stage, the prototype should have been painted in an all-over blue scheme with national colours roundels in six positions).
_____________________________

[1] Consideration was also given to remanufacturing surviving Soviet M-100 engines - copies of the HS-12Y - for use in fighters. The internal designation HA-1204-J1L was reserved for this concept.

[2] At war's end, attempts were also made to source Italian copies of the DB 605 - the Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58-I Tifone. Exports of such engines to Spain were forbidden - the peacetime government in Rome viewing Franco's Spain as the inheritors of the disgraced Fascist ideology.

[3] In service, the motor-guns caused a deal of maintenance woes and most were removed at the squadron level.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 21, 2019, 12:17:10 PM
Very nice and very plausible.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 22, 2019, 12:29:33 AM
(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=20095;image)

Now that top one is drop-dead sexy!
 :-*
You are an artiste` par excellence, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 24, 2019, 04:09:14 AM
'Merlino-Macchi' - The Ultimate Hispano Aviación Fighter

The best that could be said of the Hispano-Suiza-powered HA-1215-K1L was that it worked. The aircraft flew and handled well but the Ejército del Aire was growing impatient with the low serviceability-rate of their C-4K fleet. The EdA and Hispano Aviación faced a constant struggle sourcing parts for the troublesome HS-12Z-17 engines. Responsibility for those engines had been turned over to Fabrica de Motores de Aviación Elizalde (later ENMASA, SA) in Barcelona. However, Elizalde was already over-stretched. Meanwhile, Hispano Aviación concentrated on finding suitable replacements for the Buchón fleet's problem-prone Swiss Escher-Wyss propellers.

With problems mounting and officialdom losing patience with the Buchón, Hispano Aviación was happy to welcome Mario Castoldi back to Seville. [1] After reviewing the Buchón programme and its problems, Castoldi's recommendation was a renewed search for a new engine type. Castoldi was quite aware that Macchi had been investigation an updated C.205M powered by a Packard V-1650-7 Merlin. That powerplant was Castoldi's first choice for an HS-12Z replacement. The Americans were very cautious about exporting military engines to Franco's Spain. But, in late 1953, an alternative was found in advertised sales of surplus equipment in Britain.

By the end of 1953, ex-MoD surplus stocks of 1,600 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-45 engine with their Rotol 4-bladed propellers were arriving by sea at the Puerto de Sevilla. Hispano Aviación had already begun preparing a prototype conversion to accept the Merlin powerplant. [2] Castoldi took the opportunity to thoroughly update the airframe. The wings were slightly extended and fitted with new, squared-off wing tips. The vertical tail received a small dorsal fin but the main changes were reserved for the fuselage. Most notable was the new, sliding 'bubble' canopy replacing the original hinged and heavily-frame unit.

The Merlin installation dramatically changed the Macchi's appearance - both in its cowling and an enlarged and refined belly radiator bath. Although Castoldi's cowling looked rather bulky, the powerful Merlin was actually smaller and lighter than either the DB 605A or the Hispano-Suiza engines. Castoldi mounted the Merlin high in the airframe allowing space beneath the engine block for two large oil coolers. Beneath those coolers was a long carburettor intake truck able to accommodate dust filters as needed.

Top Merlin-powered HA-1216-M1L prototype in Hispano Aviación's civil livery prior to delivery to the Ejército del Aire.

Hispano Aviación's 'Merlino' prototype impressed Ejército del Aire officials but the MdA advised against such radical modification of now-aging airframes. Instead, the EdA's Merlin-powered HA-1216-M1Ls would be more straightforward conversions of existing Buchón airframes. The first 'production conversion' to Merlin power was completed and flying before the middle of March 1954. Within a year, all EdA HA-1215-K1L airframes had been converted into Merlin-engined HA-1216-M1L Super Buchóns. [3]

In his original concept for an evolved, Merlin-powered Macchi , Mario Castoldi envisioned an armament of four 20 mm wing guns. Castoldi proposed reverse-engineering the wartime German MG151/20 cannon he was so familiar with. These guns were small and light enough for the Buchón wing to potentially accommodate a quartet of these auto-cannons. That proposal was unacceptable to the Ejército del Aire which preferred the heavier, harder-hitting Hispano-Suiza cannon. Hispano Aviación's board of directors also preferred HS.404-style cannons and insisted that Castoldi comply. As a result, fixed armament for the HA-1216-M1L would consist of a pair of 20 mm Hispano cannons replacing the existing Buchón's twin Breda-SAFAT machine guns.

The directors of Hispano Aviación would ultimately be disappointed. Board members had imagined a new armaments division for their firm producing HS.404 auto-cannons under license to their French counterpart. Instead, the Ministerio del Aire was able to source sufficient surplus British Hispano Mk.II guns from Belgium. [4] Later, underwing bomb racks were replaced by eight-packs of 80mm Pilatus air-to-ground rockets. In the C-4M Super Buchón, the Ejército del Aire finally had the light ground-attack aircraft and colonial fighter that it needed.

Bottom Hispano Aviación HA-1216-M1L (C-4M) Super Buchón with its powerplant exposed. This is one of the first five Merlin conversions - identified by their white recognition markings on cowling nose and wing leading edge. The EdA quickly abandoned these markings, the overall azur scheme being thought distinctive enough.

___________________________________

[1] After leaving Macchi at war's end, dott. ing. Castoldi developed two aircraft concepts as a freelance designer. However, it quickly became apparent to Castoldi that he was being locked out of Italian aircraft contracts due to his close connections to the past Fascist regime. Emigration was Castoldi's only real option if he wished to continue working as an aircraft designer.

[2] This airframe was something of a chimera, being composed of the uncompleted fuselage of a HA-1202-D1L, modified wings taken from the one-off HA-1204-H1L, and the tailplane of a HA-1215-K1L.

[3] Hispano Aviación had originally proposed the name 'Esmerejón' (Merlin) for the C-4M but this was rejected by the Ejército del Aire which preferred the continuity of Super Buchón.

[4] At this stage, Belgium had begun phasing out its Supermarine Spitfire fighters. In all likelihood, the Super Buchón's surplus guns came from scrapped Spitfires.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 24, 2019, 04:11:57 AM
The top one looks sleek as a greyhound! Love the bubble-top!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 24, 2019, 04:30:16 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 24, 2019, 08:06:36 AM
Top image is just screaming for a sharks mouth! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 25, 2019, 02:12:53 AM
Beautiful, in both versions.  I could so see such a derivative being built.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 26, 2019, 05:47:36 AM
Thanks folks. This one's a trainer, so a little more mundane ...

________________________________________________

While Buchón issues were being sorted, Mario Castoldi had turned his attention to other requirements. As director técnico of Hispano Aviación, Castoldi had an oversight responsibility for all design staff - including those of 'DivPro' (División de Proyectos Avanzados), HA's advanced projects experimental division. Jefa of 'DivPro' was the visiting designer, Prof. Willy Messerschmitt. [1] 'DivPro' staff had sketched out the HA-100 Triana intermediate trainer -  a fresh design to replace the EdA's Fokker D.XXI-based Hispano HS-42. [2] The HA-100 appears to have been a sound design but Castoldi did not think it represented the best use of Messerschmitt's talents while at Hispano Aviación.

In a move which did nothing to endear the Italian director técnico to his visiting German engineer, Prof. Messerschmitt was instructed to shelve the HA-100. Instead, 'DivPro' was to focus on the advanced CTR (Caza Turborreactor/Turbojet Fighter) project - an evolution of Messerschmitt's wartime Me.P.1101 prototype. Meanwhile, Castoldi proposed a simpler solution to EdA trainer requirement - adapt the Fiat-powered HA-1201-F1L 'Burro' into a lower-powered 2-seat trainer. In the earliest plans, this aircraft was to be powered by imported radial engines - the HS-42's Piaggio P.VII C.16 or possibly surplus British Armstrong-Siddeley Cheetahs if those could be found. [3]

While the Ejército del Aire saw the commonality benefits of a Macchi-based trainer, it was the Ministerio del Aire which cemented the deal. The MdA (through the Instituto Nacional de Industria) was then in the process of ensuring a second domestic source of aviation engines. That job would fall to SEAT, S.A. with an aero-engine shop established at its new Landaben factory at Pamplona in Navarre. [4] SEAT was begun with the purpose of license-building Fiat automobiles. So, it was a natural match to assign SEAT responsibility for deep maintenance and parts supply for Fiat aero-engines. [5] Through the MdA, SEAT proposed a new 7-cylinder engine to replace earlier radials in the 375-450 hp class. It was this SEAT A.77 [6] radial that was chose to power Castoldi's new HA-2221-S1L Alcotán (Hobby) trainer.

The SEAT A.77 was an obvious choice for the HA-2221-S1L. In effect, the A.77 was simply the 'front row' of Fiat's 14-cylinder A.74 engine. As such, the A.77 was a perfect match for the Macchi airframe. The Macchi airframe required few alterations other than adaptation for tandem seating. Forward of the firewall, the engine bay was extended forward (placing the propeller disc in the same plane as with the A-74-powered HA-1201-F1L). As an economy measure, the prototype HA-2221-S1L was fitted with simple, framed canopies for the crew. This, it was reasoned provided trainees with a similar experience to sitting in the cockpit of the operational Super Buchón attack-fighters.

Top Prototype Hispano Aviación HA-2201-F1L trainer with original, framed canopies. Neither those canopies nor the 360 rotating tailwheel were retained for the production model HA-2201.

The MdA ordered 19 additional HA-2221-S1L Alcotán trainers for the EdA. The most obvious difference with production-model HA-2221s was their frame-less, 'blown' canopies. Those canopies were identical to those of the inline-engined operational trainers but, in the HA-2221s, the actual cockpits were slightly more forward placed. [7] The result was a relatively lightweight intermediate trainer which shared most features in common with the Super Buchón colonial fighter. Despite being dubbed the 'Mula' (Mule) by its crews, the HA-2221-S1L was generally regarded well and served until the EdA introduced an all-jet training syllabus for fighter crews.

Along with the HA-1216-M1L (C-4M) Super Buchón, the HA-2201-F1L (T-4S) 'Mula' was one of the last of the direct Macchi descendants to see combat. In 1957, a pair of T-4S armaments trainers accompanied the Super Buchóns of 71a Escuadron, Grupo de Caza 7 to Sáhara Española. There to fight the rebelling Ejército de Liberación, 71a Escuadron found an unexpected combat role for the T-4S 'Mulas'. Concern over potential direct Morrocan interference in the struggle, the C-4Ms were used to escort EdA CASA 2.111 bombers over rebel territory. It was found, on night raids, that low-flying 'Mulas' could readily spot ground fire aimed at the 'Pedros'. The T-4S would then engage those ground targets with their twin Breda-SAFAT wing guns. [5] 71a Escuadron remained in Sáhara Española until the signing of the Treaty of Angra de Cintra on 1 April 1958 helped end the 'Ifni War'.

Bottom 'Mula obstinada' - HA-2201-F1L (EdA T-4S) armaments trainer, Sidi Ifni, Sáhara Española. Note period EdA camouflage, dust filter, and Super Buchón-style avionics antennae (unique to Ifni 'Mulas').

_____________________________

[1] Although both Ejército del Aire and the Ministerio del Aire were frustrated by non-delivery of promised Bf 109 fighters, officialdom assigned the blame for this failure to officials of the wartime Luftwaffe and RLM - not to Prof. Messerschmitt personally.

[2] In Spanish, an intermediate trainer would be an entrenador avanzado (or avión de entrenamiento intermedio). However, the EdA were requesting an advanced trainer (Entrenador Avanzado) - a type which, despite the terminology, filled the gap between an entrenador básico (or elemental) and an operational Entrenador combate (such as the 2-seat Macchis).

[3] Elizalde/ENMASA was, once again, pushing its Beta however, Castoldi rejected this Cyclone copy for having too great a diameter to suit his trainer concept.

[4] Like Elizalde, SEAT began as a car-maker (established by the INI in 1950 with its HQ at Martorell near Barcelona). SEAT began its automotive work with a licensed copy of the Fiat 1600 sedan.

[5] SEAT's aero-engine support programme began with the 2-row Fiat A.74 14-cylinder radial for the HA-1201-F1L 'Burro'.

[6] Despite its close connection with Fiat Motori, the designation suggests that SEAT, S.A. was unaware of Fiat's own A.77 engine project of 1945.

[7] The forward-placed cockpit was dubbed 'Caja de Fuegos' ('Firebox') by trainees. But this pies en el fuego reputation was undeserved. As trainee pilots would later discover, their feet got no warmer in the 'Mula' cockpit than they did in the Super Buchón.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 26, 2019, 05:52:35 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 26, 2019, 06:37:56 AM
Oh now those are nice and you totally nailed those famous Spanish schemes!

Trainers are an area ripe for "the treatment" and overall not as widely modeled/rendered.

That blue is most easy on the eyes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 26, 2019, 09:06:30 AM
Gorgeous whiffs, there.  I wonder, have we reached the end of this story or do you have further surprises?  In any case, those trainers are gorgeous and would make interesting builds.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2019, 05:39:24 AM
Thanks folks!

Evan: A have a few more ideas ... but I think I'm already scraping the bottom of the barrel.

________________________________________

'Turbo-Buchón' - Hispano Aviación into the 'Jet Age'?

The Merlin-powered HA-1216-M1L was considered a complete success as a light attack aircraft and 'colonial fighter'. Initially, the Ejército del Aire thought that its C-4M fleet could be more heavily armed but, with the adoption of 80 mm Pilatus rockets, the Super Buchón was in its element. Still, there was no denying that Mario Castoldi's original Macchi formula was becoming increasingly dated. Hispano Aviación was pursuing more advanced designs through its experimental division - 'DivPro' (División de los Proyectos) headed by Prof. Willy Messerschmitt. In the meantime, schemes to 'tweak' the existing Super Buchóns continued to be explored at Castoldi's Triana design office.

When the Ministerio del Aire began emphasizing the advantages of turbine engines, options for 'Turbo-Buchón' were examined. Triana recommended adapting the Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop engine to the existing Super Buchón airframe (the Dart's firewall engine-mount points being identical to those of the HA-1216-M1L's Merlin). An immediate concern for any 'Turbo-Buchón' design would be the original Macchi airframes low-set horizontal tailplane. Before final engine selection had even occurred, design work had begun on an entirely new, higher-set tailplane for the future 'Turbo-Buchón'.

Top Hispano Aviación's HA-1216-M1L 'Esmerejón' demonstrator restored to flight-worthiness and fitted with its new 'turbo-tail'.

Although Castoldi's Dart recommendation represented a simple solution to bringing the Macchi airframe into the 'Jet Age', the MdA was motivated to support the development of domestic Spanish turbine engines. Accordingly, Hispano Aviación was instructed to focus on turbine proposals from Elizalde and SEAT. The former had assigned low priority to propeller-turbine engines so HA began working closely with SEAT-Pamplona. The initial SEAT design - aimed at trainers and utility transports - would have insufficient power to replace the Super Buchón's 1,600 hp Merlin piston engines. SEAT's proposed solution was to pair two such turboshaft engines to drive a single propeller through a combining gearbox.

HA's Triana design office was stunned by the apparent complexity of SEAT's 'solution'. However, the Ejército del Aire's technical office saw an opportunity. They encouraged SEAT engineers to incorporate a 'hollow' propeller shaft into their design which could accommodate a cañon motor armament. Initially, this was to be a third 20 mm Hispano gun. Then, this was eclipsed by a locally-designed 30 mm auto-cannon. [1] This combination, the MdA decided would be the re-engining solution for the 'Turbo-Buchón' while simultaneously addressing Ejército del Aire concerns about weight of fire. The die was cast.

The SEAT TP-1500 (Turbopropulsor-1500) was first constructed as an engineering mockup (with non-functioning engines). The first fully functioning TP-1500 was to be trialled in the nose of a formerly-trimotored CASA C-202 transport (stripped-down to save weight). Meanwhile, the 'dummy' TP-1500 was given a trial installation in the nose of C-4M on loan from the Ejército del Aire for the purpose. That installation went surprisingly smoothly. However, this was the only aspect of the TP-1500 programme which did proceed smoothly.

Bottom EdA HA-1216-M1L 'loaner' converted into 'C-4T' with mockup SEAT TP-1500 turbine instalation. Note the mockup-within-a-mockup - the 'dummy' Oviedo ALFA-30 (modelo 59) cañon motor. [2]

The base SEAT TP-750 turboprop had ongoing problems of flame-outs and surging on the bench. The SEAT turbine never did fly and the entire 'Turbo-Buchón' concept quickly faded away. The failure of this project had nothing to do with Hispano Aviación's efforts - indeed, it could be argued that the MdA should have followed Castoldi's recommendation to adopt the proven Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop. One outcome of this programme was the rationalization of the Spanish aero-engine industry. Reversing its earlier diversity goals, the State's Instituto Nacional de Industria combined the two main military engine suppliers into one firm. By the beginning of 1959, SEAT Aviación at Landaben was closed. Henceforth, by INI order, all future aero-engine work by SEAT and Elizalde would fall under a combined and re-organized ENMASA, SA in Barcelona.

______________________________

[1] For this project, the Fabrica de Armas de Oviedo essentially scaled-up the wartime German MG151/20 cannon. Unfortunately, the ammunition was also scaled-up from the wartime original - putting the Spanish 30 x 144 mm rounds at a disadvantage compared to the NATO standard 30 x 173 mm rounds. All completed Oviedo ALFA-30 cannons were redirected to the Armada for employment as shipboard air defence guns on larger patrol boats.

[2] Also note a marking anomoly - this aircraft features the period-correct reduced-scale tail flash and fuselage roundels but retains the out-dated 'full-sized' underwing roundels.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on April 28, 2019, 08:29:03 AM
The top one has a bit of a Swedish look to it and I can just see it with those three crown markings.

Your talent is an inspiration, apophenia.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 29, 2019, 02:56:47 AM
 :smiley:

Would love to see a RR Dart version as well - maybe a whiff within a whiff?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 29, 2019, 12:17:00 PM
Some very interesting proposals there and I agree with GTX, I'd love to see the RR Dart version.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2019, 02:44:27 AM
Thanks folks, I'll give some thought to a alt-alt Dart installation. Meanwhile, a brief digression in the Spanish Macchi story ...

As previously mentioned, Hispano Aviación's experimental division - 'DivPro' (División de los Proyectos) - was under the leadership of Prof. Willy Messerschmitt. After their HA-100 Triana intermediate trainer project was terminated, 'DivPro' focused on development of a Spanish jet fighter aircraft. Prof. Messerschmitt had been hired by Hispano Aviación primarily because he offered construction drawings of the wartime Me.P.1101 jet fighter prototype. Further development of the Me.P.1101 was to form the basis for the Ejército del Aire's advanced Avión de Caza Turborreactor (ACT) jet fighter project.

At Hispano Aviación, the ACT jet fighter project was referred to as the HA P-1101E ('E' for España). The project created to immediate challenges. First, the Me.P.1101 had not been designed by the Professor - the wartime design work had been done by Messerschmitt AG engineer, Woldemar Voigt (who had been captured by the Americans). Willy Messerschmitt's knowledge of the prototype was thus restricted to its drawings. Second, the Me.P.1101's BMW 018 turbojet engine was, obviously, no longer available. For Spain, the Me.P.1101 could be no more than a starting point for a postwar jet fighter.

At an early stage, it was decided to build a Spanish prototype with ground-adjustable wing sweep (as on the wartime original). Once, the optimum wing sweep had been found, the fixed wing sweep for production fighters could be established. For Ejército del Aire service, the first task was redesigning the airframe to take the longer-barrelled Spanish 30 mm cannon armament. To solve the jet engine conundrum, Prof. Messerschmitt used his German expat connections to establish contact with BMW turbojet design leader, Hermann Östrich who was continuing his work in French-occupied Baveria. [1] There, Östrich and his team continued development work on BMW's earlier, smaller-diameter 109-003 turbojet as the ATAR engine. 'DivPro' adopted what would become the Snecma Atar turbojet as the new base engine for their fighter design.

The actual ACT design process went through multiple phases (Fases de Diseño). The wartime Me.P.1101 was considered a baseline (Primeras Fase or Fase de Diseño no.1). For FdD no.2, an eventual French turbojet had been assumed to be of identical dimensions to the BMW 018. FdD no.3 addressed fixed-gun armament - FdD no.3A retaining the baseline twin 30 mm MK108 cannons (with their attendant availability issues), and FdD no.3B mounting six of the available 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns. After some detail redesign work, FdD no.6 adjusted for accurate size information on the French Atar turbojet. [2] A further redesign followed with FdD no.8 which had a lengthened nose (and engine intake trucking) primarily to accommodate the required long-barrelled Spanish 30 mm cannon. [3]

Top Hispano Aviación HA P-1101E (FdD no.11) jet fighter project armed with Spanish ALFA-30 guns and fitted with an ejection seat. The French Atar 101A engine is shown for scale.

As design work progressed, a number of issues and concerns came to light. A major concern was the complexity and placement of the jet fighter's undercarriage. In all earlier-phase HA P-1101E designs, the landing gear from the wartime Me.P.1101 was retained. This involved a nose gear which, as it retracted, had to rotate 90° to be compact enough to fit beneath the engine intake trunking. The aft-retracting main undercarriage tucked up into wells above the hot jet pipe - hardly an ideal location for low-pressure rubber tires. By FdD no.18, a solution to the undercarriage issues had been found but this involved a major redesign for the jet fighter's airframe.

The 'DivPro' solution was to replace the original design's 'straight through' jet trunking in favour of twin side fuselage intakes. Foreign experienced with side intakes had convinced Prof. Messerschmitt that this was a comparatively risk-free approach with newer turbojet engines. At a stroke, the need to rotate the retracting nose wheel was eliminated. The bulging of the fuselage sides to housing the new intakes also provide potential bays for the retracted main landing gear. According the main undercarriage was revised to retract forward (and away from the intense heat of the jet pipe). [4]

At this stage, the Ministerio del Aire informed Hispano Aviación that its jet fighter requirement was undergoing a major change. Rather than the fast-climbing, cannon-armed air superiority fighter originally requested, the new requirement was for a longer-ranged interceptor armed with air-to-air missiles. Eliminating the fixed guns posed no real difficulty but providing more range proved a challenge for 'DivPro' staff. In the end, the cockpit was moved forward to provide more space for fuel (it was also lowered to improve aerodynamics). Streamlined wing pylons were envisioned for missiles (or other air-to-air armaments) but the MdA could provide no details on armament since the Spanish missiles had yet to be designed.

Bottom Hispano Aviación HA P-1101E (FdD no.23) jet fighter project in imagined operational colours. Note the side intakes, revised undercarriage, and relocated cockpit.

When France refused export to Spain of the Atar 101 engine, Hispano Aviación was left without powerplant options for its jet fighter. The HA P-1101E project was dead. Without a domestic Avión de Caza Turborreactor programme, the Ministerio del Aire turned to potential import fighters to satify the Ejército del Aire's ACT requirement. Efforts to take over development of the Argentinian IAe 33 Pulqui II failed as did requests for the purchase of Swedish Saab 29s or French M.D.450 Ouragans. Rejection also ultimately accompanied Madrid's diplomatic overtures to an ideological enemy - the Soviet Union. [5] The ACT conundrum was finally satisfied when the US released F-86F Sabre jets for Spain in 1955.

______________________________________

[1] Östrich had been in charge of the design team developing the BMW 003 turbojet. To escape Allied bombing, BMW 018 work had been moved to Stassfurt, near Magdeburg, in February 1945. At war's end, Östrich had accepted a French offer to continue his turbojet work at Lindau. By October 1945, Östrich's Atelier Technique Aéronautique Rickenbach (ATAR) group had completed engineering work on the revised Rickenbach 101 (R.101, later redesignated ATAR 101).

[2] Atar development actually simplified engine installation. Whereas the BMW 018 had a diameter of 1.25 m (49.3 inches), the diameter of the French Atar was reduced to only 890 mm (35 inches) - later to grow to an even 1.00 m (39 inches).

[3] Messerschmitt's wartime Me.P.1101 had been designed for the very short-barrelled Rheinmetall MK108 cannon. The Spanish Mauser MG151/20-derived Oviedo ALFA-30 guns had considerably longer barrels.

[4] It was found that the previous wheel bays provided space for additional engine accessories and equipment (lower) and a fifth fuel bag tank (upper).

[5] The proposed Soviet deal was jet fighters for naval bases. The Red Fleet was interested in docking/re-supply rights at Cartagena on Spain's Mediterranean coast and/or Ferrol in Galicia on the Atlantic coast. In exchange, the Soviets would release jet fighters to the EdA (Spain hoping for MiG-15s but Moscow offering Lavochkin La-15s (which were due to be withdrawn from Soviet service in 1953).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 30, 2019, 03:23:04 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on April 30, 2019, 03:47:32 AM
And almost like a Saab Tunnen   Nice one Steven  :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on April 30, 2019, 04:12:54 AM
Well,,,,I like it !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2019, 04:12:22 AM
Cheers folks! Here's the next installment ...
______________________________________

While Hispano Aviación's 'DivPro' experimental division worked on the Avión de Caza Turborreactor (ACT) jet fighter project, Castoldi's office sketched out a lead-in trainer. The Entrenador Avanzado y Ataque Ligero (EAAC, Advanced Trainer and Light Attack Aircraft) represented an awareness that the performance of jet trainers would be potent enough to take on a secondary combat role. Indeed, the Ministerio del Aire came to see that role-combination as being essential in justifying the cost of yet another advanced aircraft project for the Ejército del Aire.

The first of the Castoldi team's concept appears to have been heavily influenced by the French Fouga CM.170 jet trainer then being designed. By comparison with the Fouga, the Spanish EAAC project represented a rather more compact aircraft. Elements of earlier Castoldi designs were evident in the rear fuselage shape and the empennage was basically that of the 'turbo-tail' fitted to the HA-1216-M1L 'Esmerejón' demonstrator. The wing - at least for the prototype EAAC - was to be taken directly from the Macchi fighter (albeit, modified to accommodate the main legs for a new, tricycle landing gear).

Bottom Hispano Aviación HA-P-3201 Entrenador Avanzado y Ataque Ligero (EAAC) concept (FdD No.4)

Upon reviewing the Castoldi team's EAAC design, the Ministerio del Aire expressed reservations. The first was the appropriateness of using a twin-engined trainer as lead-in to a single-engined jet fighter. Second was whether the airframe held sufficient fuel for safe operation in the training role - even with the planned wingtip fuel tanks for production models. The third reservation was with the landing gear design. A tricycle gear was clearly necessary for the jet engines but the EAAC's mid-positioned wings resulted in long main undercarriage legs. Despite that, the belly was low-slung and there were concerns about tail strike upon rotation - particularly with student pilots at the controls. Comment was also made about visibility from the rear cockpit.

In response to MdA concerns, Castoldi explained his team's design considerations. A twin-engined design had been adopted because the only small turbojet engine available to Spain was the Turbomeca Marboré which produced only 1,025 lbs of thrust. The mid-mounted wing was the best aerodynamic solution and also readily accommodated the twin jet intake trucks. A reduced airframe size and lower-set rear cockpit (in comparison with the French trainer) had been adopted to ensure a relatively high speed. That emphasis on speed related to the Ministry's requirement for a combat-capable aircraft. Reading between the lines of MdA concerns, however, it became apparent to Hispano Aviación reps that the MdA's true issue was with the unit cost of the EAAC. In effect, the MdA had requested more airplane than they could afford. Facing a potential stalemate, Castoldi proposed a return to the drawing board with a more realistic unit cost dictating the range of roles undertaken.

¡Volvamos a la mesa de dibujo! - On to the Entrenador Avanzado y Combate

For what was now re-named the Entrenador Avanzado y Combate (EAC, Advanced Trainer/Combat Aircraft) requirement, the first cost-savings could be found by halving the number of engines. That, in turn, dictated an even smaller airframe for the EAC. To avoid excessively long jet exhausts, it was decided to adopted the pod-and-boom arrangement from the ACT fighter. A single Marboré would be mounted under the boom. The obvious solution to shortening the main legs of the undercarriage was to adopt a lower-mounted wing. This would result in a lighter if somewhat 'draggier' airframe. The bifurcated engine intake ducts would be routed along the top to the wing to the face of the Marboré engine.

Crew accommodation was complicated by an Ejército del Aire insistance that the light attack role be retained. For the training role, instructor and student would be under a single, side-hinged canopy but, to save weight, no ejection seats were now omitted. By carrying 12.7 mm machine guns in underwing pods, the EAC-E (Entrenamiento) trainer would be made capable of armaments training. However, a second EAC variant would be required to perform the light attack role. The EAC-C (Combate) was a single-seater with two permanently-fitted 12.7 mm guns in the nose and weapons pylons under the wings. This two-variant EAC-E/EAC-C concept was accepted by the MdA and construction of a prototype begun.

The prototype was completed as an EAC-E two-seat trainer - dubbed HA-5201E by Hispano Aviación and the E.18 Vencejo (Swift) by the Ejército del Aire. Flight testing revealed a few deficiencies in the EAC airframe. A dorsal fin extension was added to the vertical tail to address the prototype's tendency to 'hunt' directionally. It was also decided to increase side area further by adding dihedral to the horizontal tail. [1] As originally intended, the wings were also modified to accommodate tip tanks for extra fuel. As these changes were incorporated into its airframe, the prototype EAC was also modified into an armed single-seater to prove the EAC-C configuration.

Top HA-5201E (E.18 Vencejo) Entrenador Avanzado y Combate EAC-E jet trainer variant

(To be continued ...)
________________________________________

[1] The decision to rework the tail proved fortuitous. The original horizontal stabilizers proved affected by resonance generated by the turbo's exhaust. Once removed, the original, 'flat' tailplane was found to be riven with small stress fractures.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 03, 2019, 04:50:58 AM
Wow that's very well done, apophenia!

I can only tip my hat to your boundless imagination and endless talent!
  8)
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 03, 2019, 09:39:41 AM
That's beautiful and the EAC is gorgeous (wonder if the TS.11 Iskra was inspired by similar requirements?) and both are beautifully rendered.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 04, 2019, 05:59:44 AM

Thanks folks! Evan: Yep, plenty of TS.11 Iskra DNA in the EACs ;)
_______________

Toothier Trainer - Hispano Aviación's HA-5101C Alcaudón

The Triana design office was justifiably proud of Hispano Aviación's domestic jet trainer family. Ejército del Aire trials had gauged the HA-5201E - their E.18 Vencejo 2-seat trainer - to be both under-powered and under-equipped. [1] Those were probably justified criticisms but, nevertheless, the Ministerio del Aire had already ordered the type into production. As previously mentioned, the prototype EAC-E had been modified to improve stability whilest simultaneously being converted into single-seat EAC-C ('C' for Combate) configuration.

To Hispano Aviación, the EAC-C was its HA-5101C model (with the suffix again for Combate). [2] For the EdA, this armed single-seater was the C.7 Alcaudón (Shrike). Despite that aircraft's modest performance, analysts in the Hispano Aviación sales office judged the HA-5101C to have some export potential. That assessment was based primarily on the aircraft's low unit. The sales focus would on Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. To that end, the prototype Alcaudón was borrowed back from the EdA for a sales junket through Central and South America. Hispano Aviación redubbed this aircraft as the Alcaudón-E (Alcaudón Export). [3]

Top HA-5101C Alcaudón-E in the markings of its Latin American sale tour

No export sales for the Alcaudón-E resulted from the prototype's Latin American tour. Still, displaying the aircraft raised Hispano Aviación's international profile while playing a small role in normalizing world relations with Franco's Spain. In any case, the HA-5201E/E.18 Vencejo and HA-5101C/C.7 Alcaudón were proving to be successes in domestic service. The EdA adjusted to the performance restrictions of their modest charges and reaped the benefits of the economical operation of these little aircraft. With this success under his belt, Dott. Ing. Mario Castoldi could at last retire. Castoldi returning to Italy to live out his days in comfort at Trezzano sul Naviglio.

'Turbo-Buchón' Redux - An Older Macchi Belatedly Enters the 'Jet Age'

Some years after Castoldi's retirement, the 'Turbo-Buchón' concept was revisited. The EdA had been finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the aging Merlin engines in their C-4M Super Buchón strike aircraft. A turboprop replacement was the obvious solution for re-engining the HA-1216-M1L fleet. But by then, Hispano Aviación had ceased to exist. In yet another of its forced re-organizations, the Instituto Nacional de Industria had subsumed HA into an enlarged CASA, SA. It was CASA which instituted the revived C-4T programme.

Ironically, this time, the MdA accepted a proposal to install the Rolls-Royce Dart as a Merlin replacement - just as Mario Castoldi had originally recommended years earlier. Since both Rolls-Royce engines used similar firewall engine-mounting points, replacing the Merlins with Darts providing no great mechanical challenges. A key issue with a HA-1216-M1L re-engining programme lay with the low-set tailplane being bathed in the hot exhaust plume. The MdA rejected an entirely new  raised tail on as old an airframe as the Super Buchón. Instead, a replacement horizontal tailplane was designed by CASA's Triana office. This heavier-built stabilizer and its elevator were metal-covered. The leading edge of both stabilizers and elevators were covered in stainless steel to resist the turboprop's exhaust heat.

A prototype conversion to 'C-1216-D2L' standard was undertaken using a Dart turboprop, engine mount, and cowling parts taken from a Vickers Viscount. [4] Engine installation went smoothly but flight trials were another matter. That longer nose caused no end of stabilty problems. This had been anticipated and an extra dorsal fin had been added to the prototype conversion. This dorsal fin proved woefully inadequate - it was increased in size twice and a small ventral fin was also added. Eventually, the tail fin was also slightly extended and a new, enlarged rudder applied. These tweaks worked but the C-4T Harpía (Harpy) would never regain the pleasant flight characteristics of the C-4M Super Buchón.

Mario Castoldi's response to the HA-1216-D2L/C-4T [4] transformation was not recorded. Doubtless, he would have regarded the Dart-powered C-4T conversions as abominations - the shapely lines of his original Macchi fighters were all but gone. But neither the MdA or EdA was interested in such aesthetic concerns. The 'new' CASA C-4Ts were filling a vital role and doing all that was expected of them. The rebuilt Harpías had lost none of their predecessor's speed or load-carrying capability. [5] With a comparatively simple to execute modification programme, effectiveness had been added to aircraft which had otherwise reached the practical end of their service lives. As modified, the C-4Ts lasted another decade in Spanish service.

BottomA C-4T Harpía at CASA's Triana facility for a rebuild. The replacement cowling demonstrates one of the CASA C-1216-D2L strike aircraft's weak points - a propensity for nosing over with hard braking. [6]

________________________________________

[1] The key EdA equipment complaint was the lack of an ejector seat. Since the in-service Sabre fighters were fitted with asiento eyectable, this was a valid complaint. However, blame for this absence lay with MdA budget-wrangling not with Hispano Aviación.

[2] With Hispano Aviación internal designations, the first numeral indicated a major design type - in this case, '5' for the EAC series. The next numeral indicated crew number - so, '1' for the single-seat EAC-C but '2' for the 2-seat EAC-E. The final two numerals were reserved for sub-types (but infrequently used).

[3] In some sources, the 'E' in Alcaudón-E is said to stand for España. Either way, with the EAC-C/EAC-E designation distinction, that 'E' suffix was bound to confuse potential customers for the export model

[4] The engine was taken from ex-KLM V.803 series Viscount PH-VID (c/n 175). That aircraft had sat 'in the weeds' at the EdA's Base Aérea de Torrejón since being wrecked there in July 1958. Mistaking BA Torrejón for nearby Barajas (MAD), the KLM crew had over-shot on landing. Upon leaving the runway, PH-VID had swiped its nose gear and wrinkling the forward fuselage. Fortunately for the Spanish C-4T programme, neither the engines nor propellers were damaged. The first four Harpía all received powerplants and cowling compenents from PH-VID.

[5] Adopting the wing tip fuel tanks from the EAC trainers actually increased the turboprop strike aircraft's usable range.

[6] This aircraft shows the scheme for Harpía conversions. Note that squadron code markings have been erased (once repairs are completed, this aircraft will go into the Harpía 'pool'.) Oddly, despite carrying a full under-wing practice weapons load, this aircraft has not yet had its gun sight refitted.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 04, 2019, 08:58:29 AM
Very nice, both of them.  The Turbo-Buchonis at least as aesthetic as any of the "Turbo-Mustang" conversions using Darts.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 05, 2019, 04:09:44 AM
One could easily see the C-4T being nicknamed the “Cyrano de Bergerac“

 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 06, 2019, 05:54:27 AM
One could easily see the C-4T being nicknamed the “Cyrano de Bergerac“

 :smiley:
*snicker* I like that idea.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 07, 2019, 05:25:57 AM
One could easily see the C-4T being nicknamed the “Cyrano de Bergerac“

 ;D  ... And now, the final installment in the Spanish Macchi story ...

____________________

Film Star - From 'Mula' to 'Mock Saetta'

When the CASA Cernícalo (Kestrel) intermediate trainer entered Ejército del Aire service, obsolescent Hispano Aviación HA-2221-S1L Alcotán trainers - aka EdA T-4S 'Mulas' - were withdrawn from use or became squadron hacks for the few remaining C-4T Harpía squadrons. The Alcotán's 'bumped' cowling gave it a very dated look - but also provided the strongest resemblance to the ancestoral Macchi fighters. This had not escaped the notice of aviation enthusiasts in Italy. Already, retired Alcotán airframes had contibuted components to Italian museum restorations of Macchi C.202 and C.205V fighters.

When plans began for a motion picture re-enacting the story of Italian aviators in Libya during WWII, the Alcotán offered a near-period appearance. Alas, the Spanish Government declined all offers of purchase for airworthy 'Mulas'. However, the Ministerio del Aire in cooperation with the Dirección General de Turismo [1] proposed an alternative scheme. Several T-4S 'Mulas' still with the EdA would be modified - by the Spanish aviation industry - to resemble the Italian's wartime Macchi C.200 Saetta fighters. An agreement was reached with the Italian film production company. That firm would fund the required visual modifications while the airframes remained the property of the Spanish state.

"I'm Ready for My Close-Up" - 'Mula' Modifications

In the final conversion contract, it was agreed that two T-4S would be modified into single-seaters. Both featured a new, raised and open cockpit. A 'hunched' forward fuselage and fake machine guns would complete the illusion of a Macchi C.200 fighter. A third 'Mula' remained a 2-seater and was intended as a camera ship. [2] For that purpose, multiple camera mounting points were incorporated. The rear position was screened to resemble a Saetta cockpit. The rear cockpit's stick-and-pedals had been removed but actors could be filmed 'at the controls'.

With a leased B-25 Mitchell operating as its lead camera plane, the movie was filmed over Andalusia and its Mediterranean coastline. The 'Mula' camera ship (EC-MCH) was the least convincing 'mock Saetta' but was suitable for formation shots taken from a distance. One of the single-seaters (EC-MCI) was also used as a fixed-camera ship. For 'in action' shots, the glass-fibre rear cockpit fairing was removed to expose the camera mounts. This provided over-the-shoulder shots of the pilot for the airplane being manoeuvred in the air as well as on take-off and landing. The overall effect of the 'mock Saettas' was very good. For the average film-goer, the modified T-4S was the spitting image of the wartime Macchi fighter.

The dramatic qualities of the film were less successful. Today, the movie 1940 - Africa Settentrionale is best-remembered for launching the film career of its love-interest co-star, Monica Vitti. Its flying stars faded from memory. They were largely forgotten until after the death of Francisco Franco. Then, two of the mouldering Macchis were recovered from the weeds at the EdA's Base Aérea de Vázquez Sagastizábal (near Seville) [3] for restoration. By the early 1980s, both former aerial film stars had become regular performers at Italian airshows.

________________________

[1] The Dirección General de Turismo answered to both the Ministerio de Cultura and the Ministerio de Información y Turismo ... but not the Dirección General de Cinematografía y Teatro. Despite its name, the latter Directorate for Cinematography and Theatre was actually Franco's agency for film and theatre censorship.

[2] Two other non-flying T-4S airframes were visually modified to act as 'ground-runners'. A non-running 'Mula' was also temporarily fitted with the two-row Fiat A.74 engine. Unfortunately, no surviving cowling from a HA-1201-F1L 'Burro' could be located (so this mockup was used to represent a desert airstrip maintenance scene).

[3] Now Base Aérea de Morón/Morón Air Base (OZP/LEMO), 56 km SW of Seville.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 07, 2019, 07:41:02 AM
That's some super smoke-ring camo and that 2-seater sure has a certain character to it.

Which is one of the things I enjoy about your work. You never fail somehow to impart character into everything you render.

Wonderful to see this on a Monday.
 8)
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 08, 2019, 03:56:33 AM
Cheers Brian. And now for something completely different ...

In M.A.D's Alternative Australian Defence Force Orbat thread, he was asking about a variant of the Breguet Alizé to fill a shipboard AEW role for the RAN. tankmodeler suggested up-engining to the Dart RDa.10 (2,555 shp): http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6278.msg145622#msg145622 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6278.msg145622#msg145622)

There were two RW proposals for an AEW Alizé. The more practical one had a top-mounted radome. The alternative proposal (with much more whif appeal) had a belly radome necessitating a much taller undercarriage. The main gear is easy - it retracts into the wing pods (with no need for sonobuoys, the AEW version's pods have plenty of room for longer main legs when retracted).

The longer nose gear is trickier. Fortunately, tankmodeler's suggestion results in a longer nose. Problem solved ... at least in whif-world ;)

I liked tankmodeler's approach but tweaked it slightly. First, I kept the standard Alizé crew positions. Then, in place of the Dart RDa.10s, I've gone with Dart RDa.12 Mk 201s governed down from their usual 3,245 shp output. My reasoning was engine commonality (read: shared MRO) with Kiwi Andovers. Then, there's the potential of an RAAF AEW type based on the HS748.

For that RAAF AEW HS748, I'm thinking the same radar set as the AEW Alizé and this HS748 AEW would also be powered by the same governed-down Dart RDa.12s. The AEW variants could be converted from the RAAF's Series 2/229 C.2s (A10-595 & A10-596) with their Dart RDa.8s replaced and stripped of VIP seating. (Perhaps these AEW HS748s could remain with No.32 Sqn but act as lodger dets at whichever based they were required at?)

Name: 'Breguet Bactrian' is already spoken for ;)  Of course, alizé means 'trade wind'. Are there any appropriate Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander names for Aussie trade winds? (BTW, why didn't the RAAF use the name Andover for the HS748? After all, there is an historical village of Andover in Tasmania.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 08, 2019, 04:02:34 AM
Good grief! Even a soft deck landing & that radome is ending up in the crew compartment! :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 08, 2019, 04:05:53 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 08, 2019, 04:45:24 AM
It's about time those Aussies got saddled with such a looker.

I like the subdued scheme and I can say I've never seen that type of aircraft (or any variant thereof) rendered better!

You've got an artist's eye, apophenia!

Better hope he doesn't want it back.  ;D

Great stuff and always a treat to see your latest!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 08, 2019, 05:26:26 AM
Now that Alize is something to think about, got a couple of those radomes in the stash ----
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 08, 2019, 06:46:36 AM
I have a 1/48 Alizé in the stash which is going to be a RAN FAA bird but in a scheme like this:

(https://cdn.jetphotos.com/full/1/43619_1225085810.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 08, 2019, 09:45:29 AM
Good grief! Even a soft deck landing & that radome is ending up in the crew compartment! :o
I'll have to agree, there.  But it is a beautiful rendering of the concept.  May we now have one of the top-mounted radome?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 08, 2019, 10:22:29 AM
Taking the idea a little further, one can see a similarity between this one:

(https://www.worldwarbirdnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Breguet-Alizé-n°50-CAEA.jpg)

And this RAAF FAC PC-9A:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Royal_Australian_Air_Force_%28A23-020%29_Pilatus_PC-9A_landing_at_the_2015_Australian_International_Airshow.jpg/1600px-Royal_Australian_Air_Force_%28A23-020%29_Pilatus_PC-9A_landing_at_the_2015_Australian_International_Airshow.jpg)

Therefore RAAF/RAN (joint squadron even?) FAC Alizé?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on May 08, 2019, 11:03:37 AM
After scrutinizing pictures:  yes, they both have nice four blade props, but decided I prefer airplane in lower picture.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 08, 2019, 09:37:18 PM
I was reading somewhere that the Alize was considered by the Air Ministry (or was that the Navy), but then rejected as underpowered.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 09, 2019, 01:30:50 AM
the Air Ministry

Which Air Ministry?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 09, 2019, 02:24:50 AM
the Air Ministry

Which Air Ministry?

Good question, if I could find where I read that I'll let you know. I think it was in an AeroMilitaria
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on May 09, 2019, 03:42:26 AM
Love the RAN Alize.

I've whacked my interpretations of the two Breguet suggested variants on my profile thread.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7176.30 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7176.30)

I'm happy to whip up versions in RAN schemes if anyone is interested.

Mark
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2019, 03:51:36 AM
Good grief! Even a soft deck landing & that radome is ending up in the crew compartment! :o

It does indeed, venerable vombatus. Perhaps that's why Dassault/Breguet put forward their top-mounted radome concept for the Alizé AEW? On the other hand, the built AEW Gannets seem to have been operated without too many 'deck landing modifications' of radomes.

Jonesthetank Love your top-mounted version - especially the twin tails  :smiley:

Anybody have suggestions for indigenous names for Aussie trade winds?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 11, 2019, 01:46:27 AM
Anybody have suggestions for indigenous names for Aussie trade winds?

Maybe not Trade Winds as such but here are some potential aboriginal words that might relate:

Bullai bullai - north wind
Boolee - Whirlwind
Booligal - A windy place
Booromi - Wind
Barega - Wind
Gooreek - Wind
Guruwa - Wind
Kareela - Wind
Koorin - East wind
Kareelah - South wind
Mornmoot - Blast of wind
Myamba - Strong wind
Oolilpa - Wind
Pukara - South wind
Tiarri - Wind

Koorin might be a potential given it is "East wind" and Trade Winds are winds from the east toward the west (easterly) found in the tropics
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2019, 06:33:56 AM
Ooo, great stuff on the wind names  :smiley:  Cheers Greg!  Gotta be the Breguet Booligal, right?

Since Jonesthetank already has the RW dorsal-antennaed AEW Alizé proposal covered, I thought I'd try something different.

The assumption here is that the RAN rejected the original Thomson CSF AEW antennae for some reason. Instead a proposal was accepted from General Electric for a scaled-down derivative of the AN/APS-125 radar antennae for the US Navy's Grumman E-2 Hawkeye.

This new, compact AN/APS-502 radar was less capable than that of the US Hawkeye but was seen as adequate for the needs of the RAN. Development costs for the APS-502 set was kept manageable by tieing into Grumman Tracker modernization projects. Rather than following the Grumman E-1A formula with its fixed antenna, many Tracker users chose to develop new roto-dome AEW variants (generally along with turboprop conversion).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on May 12, 2019, 05:46:16 PM
Now, that looks absolutely spot on!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 13, 2019, 02:39:21 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 13, 2019, 10:54:21 AM
Oh, I like.  And with antenna upgrades, that aircraft could be useful to the end of airframe life, though I could see various upgrades being applied as seem suitable.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 15, 2019, 05:45:58 AM
A quickie retouch of the twin-T58 Alizé proposal. So quick, in fact, that I just noticed I forgot to reinstall the belly search radar radome and put the 'NAVY' on the rear fuselage  :-[ 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 16, 2019, 01:51:37 AM
 :smiley:

Just say it was just out of the shop and still requiring work. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on May 16, 2019, 03:28:19 AM
Apophenia, you beat me to it!

Looks fantastic.

Thanks for the translation in M.A.Ds ADF Orbat thread  :smiley:

Mark
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 17, 2019, 05:01:29 AM
Just say it was just out of the shop and still requiring work. ;)

 :D  Cheers Mark. The twin-engined Alizé isn't much of a looker but I like the concept nonetheless.

On to something else ...

Commonwealth Aircraft CA-26 Super Wackett

The CAC CA-26 Super Wackett was actually a joint project between Commonwealth Aircraft and de Havilland Australia. This 1948 programme involved the wholesale re-manufacturing of retired CA-6 Wackett airframes to provide the RAAF with a more modern basic trainer. Within that re-manufacturing programme, CAC was responsible for airframe work while DHA provided (and late produce) adapted DHC-1 Chipmunk components - including engine mounts, cowlings, and canopies.

DHA also supplied Gipsy engines and propellers as well as rebuilding CA-6 Wackett undercarriage assemblies. CAC produced an entirely new, all-metal structure wing and refurbished existing CA-6 fuselage frames for the Super Wackett programme. Ultimately, an entirely new tailplane - insired by the license-built CA-17 Mustang fighter was also built for 'production' conversion CA-26s.

The new, metal wing was smaller than the original to give a livelier performance. Span was reduced to 34.5 feet (10.51 m) with area down to 170 square feet (15.79 m²). It was originally intended to keep the wooden tailplane from the CA-6 - as on the prototype CA-26 - but, to reduce maintenance loads, it was later decided to provide a new empennage of metal construction. One result of all this reworking was a reduction in all-up weight of 200 lbs (100 kg). That was essential in allowing the CA-6's Warner Scarab radial engine to be replaced while retaining adequate take-off performance. [1]

The CA-26 Super Wackett would be powered by a 145 hp de Havilland Gipsy Major 1C inline. [2] Serving until the mid-'50s, the Super Wackett received the RAAF serial prefix of A33 [3] with aircraft numbers being inherited from their CA-6 'doner' airframe - so, A33-77 illustrated was re-manufactured from CA-6 c/n 311 (formerly A3-77 of 3 EFTS).
__________________

[1] There was no weight-savings in changing engines since the Gipsy Major 1C and Warner Scarab had the same dry weight.

[2] Ironically, this was a postwar version of the 130 hp DH Gipsy Major engines originally fitted to the CA-12 prototypes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2019, 01:54:36 AM
A little different from the real-world CA-26  ;):

(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/Sabre-A94-101/A94_101_RAAF_Wagga_Photo_Tom_Smith.jpg)

Interestingly, in the real world, the first two prototypes (shown below) did have in-line Gipsy Major/Gipsy six engines but were found to be under-powered.  This is why they went to the 175hp Warner Scarab.

(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ADF%20Telegraph%202015%20Spring%20Vers%20Fin3_zpsd4kpkzec.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on May 18, 2019, 03:08:13 AM
Few things are as eye-catching as that trainer yellow.

Well done, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 18, 2019, 03:47:46 AM
Interestingly, in the real world, the first two prototypes (shown below) did have in-line Gipsy Major/Gipsy six engines but were found to be under-powered.  This is why they went to the 175hp Warner Scarab.

Yeah, re-engining was a good move. And that's what prompted my Super Wackett 'weight-reduction' programme. I love the look of the DH-powered CA-2 prototypes but they sound pretty gutless  :P

Now ... inspired by this:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1136.msg152333#msg152333 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1136.msg152333#msg152333)

M.A.D had mentioned a Herc with An-32-style nacelles to allow larger-diameter propellers. Here, I've just plonked a Orion wing and nacelles onto a C-130H fuselage. Of course, that won't get M.A.D his larger props, so ... no apparent advantages (other than further reduction in FOD potential).

To get M.A.D's desired advantage, you'd need more span to clear larger-diameter props (or go multi-bladed as per C-130J). A question for the engineers is: are there any other benefits to a high-mounted version of the L-188/P-3 wing?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2019, 03:50:59 AM
 :smiley:

Now add in a flying boat hull... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 18, 2019, 03:59:41 AM

To get M.A.D's desired advantage, you'd need more span to clear larger-diameter props (or go multi-bladed as per C-130J).


Or just move the engines further out along the wing, like how the A400 does it. The prop wash just about covers the whole wing ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 18, 2019, 04:02:44 AM
First of all, that was the configuration on the proposed C-130 flying boat to keep the props out of the spray.

Also, how about dual TP400s mounted above the wing to restore the original ground clearance on the C-130? I know the TP400 testbed had it mounted normally, but that wasn't mean to land in rough airfields at all. You can take timed out C-130Hs that need a new wing box and just give them a new wing with twin TP400s as sort of a budget C-130J competitor.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 18, 2019, 04:25:06 AM
Or just move the engines further out along the wing, like how the A400 does it. The prop wash just about covers the whole wing ---

That makes me think of the Dash 7. Prop-wash over the whole wing = instant STOL  :D

... how about dual TP400s mounted above the wing to restore the original ground clearance on the C-130? I know the TP400 testbed had it mounted normally, but that wasn't mean to land in rough airfields at all. You can take timed out C-130Hs that need a new wing box and just give them a new wing with twin TP400s as sort of a budget C-130J competitor.

I like your thinking Logan! Especially combining the conversion work with new wing boxes. Actually, I had that in my original scenario for A97-449 (which also lost its former C-130H-30 'stretch' barrel sections).

Looking at the TP400-D6, its gearbox and intake arrangement is quite similar to that of the T56. Not that difficult to image it reorganized for a lower thrust line/higher air intake  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 18, 2019, 04:37:59 AM
The few A400's I saw at YYC were mostly Luftwaffe, and they sort of just arrive un-announced. So they got directed to an apron and then they have to wait for the ground crew to get organized, sometimes they were left there with their engines running for 40-50 minutes. One thing I noticed about the sound of the TP-400's when they are just idling --- they rattle ---  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 18, 2019, 04:46:07 AM
You could even make it an Airbus project. The A400M sales aren't quite doing as well as they'd like, they offer to purchase countries' old C-130s in order to better facilitate sales, then they re-wing and re-engine them to give Airbus an offering in between the C-295 and A400M to compete with the C-130J and KC-390. In fact, if you put refueling tanks on them, you can say the higher mounting was for greater ground clearance as well as reduced prop wash for refueling helicopters.

Just some ideas.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 18, 2019, 05:08:52 AM
Real world proposal:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/C-130Float.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 19, 2019, 06:49:21 AM
Thanks folks.

Logan: Making this an Airbus project makes great sense - I'm imagining most sales being to A400M operators who also use the Hercules.

That said, I've rather gone off the overhead nacelles (although it makes perfect sense for Greg's flying boat). So, I've gone with underwing nacelles inspired by Marshall Aerospace's 'Snoopy' testbed.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8546.msg155124#msg155124 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8546.msg155124#msg155124)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 22, 2019, 05:21:07 AM
Just for fun ... the inverted, upper intake version of the Europrop TP400
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 23, 2019, 03:16:07 AM
Hmmm...TP400 powered flying boat anyone?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on May 26, 2019, 02:13:36 AM
Hmmm...TP400 powered flying boat anyone?

Seagull style.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Supermarine_Seagull.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 26, 2019, 02:58:49 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 26, 2019, 03:25:57 AM
Hmmm...TP400 powered flying boat anyone?

Seagull style.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Supermarine_Seagull.jpg)

Hmm! think on that I will ---  :icon_meditation:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2019, 07:20:41 AM
First, some background blather ...

When Alexandr Yakovlev's twin-engined Izdelie 22 design first appeared, Iosif Stalin declared it a "miracle" and "a revolution in aviation". Very fast for its time, this small but powerful aircraft was not yet fully-equipped as a military type. [1] Fitted with defensive armament and bombs, the Yakovlev design became the BB-2 (for Blizhnii Bombardirovshchik or Short-range Bomber) or Yak-2. Inevitably, performance suffered once military equipment was installed. Despite having their fuel load reduced, in service BB-2s lost half of their speed advantage. Stability issues also manifested themselves. The role was then shifted to short-range reconnaissance.

Revised as the Yak-4, the Yakovlev fared little better in the recce role. Stability remained an issue and range was inadequate despite added fuel tanks in the wings. Iosif Stalin continued to favour Alexandr Yakovlev whose new single-engine fighter design - the I-26 (later Yak-1) - showed great promise. Politically, it easier to skirt the limitations of the BB-2 and Yak-4 than to challenge Stalin's previous assumptions. Problems inherent in the Izdelie 22 design were buried and production quietly wound down. In the meantime, aviation industry policy-makers attempted to shift an future blame onto those who could not easily defend themselves.

Due to Stalin's purges, most of the Soviet Union's senior aircraft designers were in prison. Most worked in design bureau TsKB-29 inside a NKVD jail. With several major aircraft projects already underway, [2] it was decided to assign responsibility for improving the Yak-4 airframe to two relatively junior designers - Iosif Grigorevich Neman (formerly cheif designer at the Kharkov Aviation Institute) and Dimitri Tomashevich (who had been on of Andrei Tupolev's assistant designers). These two men would be assigned Projects 110A and 110B which were general briefs to improve the performance of the Yak-4. However, those briefs soon became much more specific.

Officialdom was suddenly placing greater urgency on the development of armoured attack aircraft. The 'Project 110' designers were given revised instructions to quickly explore such possibilities for the Yak-4 airframe. Sergei Ilyushin was already designing his TsKB-55 (which would emerge as the Il-2) but there were delays in development. The brilliance of Ilyushin's design was incorporating armoured components as structural components. However, technical difficulties were encountered in ensuring that treated armour retained its shape to precise tolerances. While those difficulties were worked out, alternative 'Shturmoviki' would be needed. All 'Project 110' was to focus on ways of converting the Yak-4 from sow's ear recce aircraft into a silk purse armoured attacker. Neman and Tomashevich would do the work (in competition). If successful, Yakovlev would receive the credit. If a failure, Neman and/or Tomashevich would receive the blame.

(To be continued ...)
________________________

[1] Using the same Klimov M-103 engines, the Izdelie 22 was a full 100 km/h faster than the in-service Tupolev SB 'fast bomber'.

[2] The 'prisoner-workers' in "Tupolev's Jail" were allocated to separate design rooms. There, V. Petlyakov worked at 'Project 100', a high-altitude fighter (which formed the basis of the future Pe-2 bomber); of V. Myasishchev, worked at 'Project 100', a high-altitude bomber (later the DVB-102); while Tupolev himself worked at 'Project 100', a dive-bomber (which became the Tu-2 bomber).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2019, 07:21:26 AM
Potential roles for developed Yak-4s - including likely success in the armoured attacker role - were limited by another policy shift. All available Klimov M-105 engines were now to be reserved for more promising aircraft types - like Yakovlev's I-26/Yak-1 fighter. The imprisoned design team working on 'Project 110' improvements to the Yakovlev Yak-4 design would need to make that airframe useful with less powerful engines. Iosif Nemen first attempted to revise his partially-completed study for a bomber trainer. That trainer was to be powered by twin 730 hp M-25 radials (familiar to Neman from his R-10) but it was quickly concluded that the old Shvetsov radial engines would provide insufficient power for any well-armoured derivative. A complete fresh approach was dictated.

In the first submission for an armoured attack aircraft came from Dimitri Tomashevich. Ironically, the 'Project 110B' team had followed a similar approach to that recently abandoned by Neman's 'Project 110A' group. The Tomashevich design basically adapted the 1,000 hp Shvetsov M-62 radial to the Yak-4 airframe. It was accepted wisdom (based upon Soviet combat experience in Spain) that air-cooled engines were less vulnerable to combat damage than liquid-cooled engines such as the Yak-4's M-105 V-12s. Accordingly, Tomashevich afforded no armour protection to the engines. Instead, only critical engine components - such as the oil filters - received any armour. In contrast, the entire crew compartment (now relocated to sit on the centre-of-gravity) was protected by armour panels bolted to the outside of the airframe.

Top 'Project 110B' Yak-4Sh (Shturmovik) aka Tomashevich OO-BSh (Otdel Opytnovo-Broniovanny Shturmovik or Experimental Design-Armoured Attack Aircraft)

While the Tomashevich proposal was being evaluated by the NII-VVS (the scientific and research arm of the VVS), the Neman team raced to complete their Yak-4-derived armoured attacker. When completed, this rival submission took its NII-VVS judges off guard. In place of a re-engined and armoured Yak-4, the 'Project 110A' team delivered a completely redesigned airframe based closely upon Ilyushin single-seat TsKB-57 attacker. In place of twin engines, a single large Mikulin M-35 inline was installed in the nose (Neman was not yet aware of Mikulin's M-38 development). The armoured cockpit cover from the TsKB-57 was adopted directly. A new forward fuselage was devised - created from welded steel-tubing like the Yak-4's rear fuselage structure. Flanking the cockpit section were bolted-on armoured ducts which protected the side-mounted coolant radiators as well as the pilot. Protection was completed by installing flat-plate armour panels to the rear and below the cockpit.

Bottom 'Project 110A' Yak-Sh aka Neman OO-BSh, single-engined armoured attacker

Where Tomashevich's submission had been conservative, Neman's proposal was audacious. However, neither scheme was accepted - the 'Project 110A' plan being too similar to the preferred Ilyushin attacker, the 'Project 110B' submission being too limited in performance. Instead, both design teams were invited to submit alternative plans. Tomashevich chose to ignore the brief and submitted a very radical plan for a very small, well-protected armoured attacker. Neman submitted a new concept sticking more closely to the original Yak-4 layout but using smaller, air-cooled engines. These were the lightweight Walter Gamma air-cooled, inverted V-12 recently arrived in the Soviet Union. [2]

(To be continued ...)
___________________________________

[1] Under this scheme, the Yak-4-based trainers would receive reconditioned M-25s. This was to allow viable combat types - such as older I-16 fighters - to be re-engined with the more powerful Shvetsov M-62 radial.

[2] Rights to the Walter engines formed part of the Soviet deal with Czechoslovakia to provide Tupolev SB bombers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 07, 2019, 07:27:39 AM
Those are great apophenia and you captured that famous Soviet scheme most wonderfully.

I especially like the 'Project 110A' Yak-Sh at the bottom. There's something about a single-engine, twin-rudder attack bird that just does it for me.

Most excellent!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 08, 2019, 03:12:13 AM
Interesting. I have also considered a naval conversion for the 1/48 Yak-2 kit I have.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 08, 2019, 04:35:08 AM
Thanks folks. I'm interested to see that naval Yak-2! Shipboard or land-based?
--------------

The alternative proposal from Dimitri Tomashevich was accepted as a low-priority project which the 'Project 110B' team would further develop from their prison design office. But the second 'Project 110A' submission won Iosif Neman the big prize. At the end of 1940, Neman and key members of his team were released from the NKVD jail and their prison work within design bureau TsKB-29. By mid-January of 1941, they were back at Neman's starting point - the the Kharkov Aviation Institute (KhAI). But, now, Neman headed a small team nested under the new chief designer of KhAI - Pavel Sukhoi. There would be no love lost between the two designers.

Pavel Sukhoi had not only taken over Neman's former position, his Sukhoi BB-1 (Su-2) short-range bomber had also replaced Neman's R-10 on the KhAI production line. Alas, the Su-2 proved to be rather disappointing design. As Sukhoi worked to improve his BB-1, the last thing he needed was a potential replacement threat from within his own factory. Neman and team would be given a corner of KhAI to work in - as instructed by Moscow - but there would be no cooperation. Worse, Neman's progress - or lack thereof - would be reported directly to the NKVD. Although released from prison, Neman had not yet been 'rehabilitated' by the Soviet state. Until he was, Neman technically remained vulnerable as 'an enemy of the people'. The resulting fear needed to be turned into a motivation.

The first step for the former 'Project 110A' team was to demonstrate the viability of their proposal. To that end, a Yak-4 airframe was transferred from Tushino to Kharkov. This was the prototype Yak-4 KABB/MV, a failed ground-attack variant of the BB-22 family. As ordered, the Yak's M-105 engines and cowlings were immediately removed and shipped by rail back to GAZ-81 at Tushino where Yak-4 production continued. The airframe was then re-engined with sample, Czech-built Walter Gamma IV-12s received from the new motor plant at Zaporozhye (in southeastern Ukraine). At the same time, work began on redesigning the original Yak-4 fuselage to incorporate an armoured cockpit.

In what would emerge as the KhAI-14 (aka Neman BSh-1), a new single-seat cockpit was located low in the fuselage ahead on the forward wing spar. The forward fuselage 'skin' was almost entirely made up of armour panels bolted on to a revised steel-tube frame. Aside from armoured spinner back plates, the Gammas remained unprotected (in the then-current belief that air-cooled engines could absorb sufficient battle damage to be survivable). The prototype KhAI-14 flew well despite having half the engine power of the standard Yak-4. Preparation for production began at Kharkov (with many components being supplied by Zavod 454 in Kiev).

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 08, 2019, 05:01:05 AM
Plan is to be shipboard
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 08, 2019, 06:05:40 AM
That bottom profile has a bit of a Henschel Hs 129 look to it Steven ---  :smiley: Needs a dirty great big cannon sticking out the front  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on June 08, 2019, 06:30:03 AM
That bottom profile has a bit of a Henschel Hs 129 look to it Steven ---  :smiley: Needs a dirty great big cannon sticking out the front  ;)

Yes -- Henschel Hs 129 DNA is there.   All looking good.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 08, 2019, 07:45:53 AM
I'm seeing a bit of Hs-129 pedigree in it myself.

Great stuff and the engine detail is very nicely rendered indeed.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2019, 06:59:56 AM
Thanks folks. Yes, Hs 129A was the look I was going for ...
___________________________________

Production of the KhAI-14 began with the assembly of a small series of pre-production KhAI-14A airframes. These pre-producion aircraft were assembled from components from a range of sources. The main undercarriage units, wings, and basic steel-tube fuselage structures (albeit, now completely shpon-covered) were parts shipped to Kharkov from GAZ-81 at Tushino. The Gamma engines came from Zaporozhye but were comprised almost entirely of Czech-made parts imported back in 1939. The cockpit canopy and windscreen originated with Ilyushin. [1] The heavily armoured forward fuselage was, of course, completely new. So too was the much-enlarged vertical tail surfaces required for stability (their ugly, squared-off form having been adopted to simplify production).

As planned, the main fixed armament for the KhAI-14S was mounted in an under-belly tray. It was intended to install four ShKAS machine guns flanking a single 23 mm PTB-6 cannon. However, the recoil forces of the PTB-6 proved excessive and the rifle-calibre ShKAS were now being seen as inadequate for the ground-attack role. Fortunately, the belly tray was designed for flexibility of armament. The KhAI-14As were all delivered to VVS united armed with twin 20 mm ShVAK cannons and four 12.7 mm UBK machine guns.

Top A pre-production KhAI-14A newly delivered from the Kharkov assembly line in late May 1941. Note the early fair-lead for the radio antenna (later replaced with a raised antenna post).

Some redesign was undertaken prior to commencing full production. The biggest change was the armouring of the lower engine cowlings. The opportunity was also taken to provide extractor tubes to provide a modicum of exhaust thrust augmentation. Soviet VISh-84E constant-speed propellers replaced the pre-production model's Czech-made  three-bladed props. The profile of the fuselage tailcone was also revised to provide some rear-defence capability by incorporating a wobble-mounted 7.62 mm ShKAS machine gun.

Standard offensive armament was a single 37 mm Sh-37 cannon and three 12.7 mm UBK machine guns. Unfortunately, the Sh-37 cannon proved unreliable in service. Most KhAI-14Bs were re-armed with the usual KhAI-14A fixed armament of two 20 mm ShVAK and four 12.7 mm UBK guns. However, after the beginning of German's Operation Barbarossa, a number of KhAI-14Bs were delivered with a single 20 mm ShVAK and three UBK guns. A few early-production KhAI-14Bs had field modification where their Sh-37 was replaced by a belly bomb rack capable of carrying a FAB-500 (but with a FAB-250 being the common load).

Bottom Production model KhAI-14B in service. Note revised exhaust outlets and tail-defence ShKAS gun. 'Red 19' has either lost its wheel-cover doors was either delivered without these doors in the frantic days of June 1941. Note the ad hoc RS-82 rocket projectile mounts under the outer wings.

The KhAI-14C (or Neman Ne-2C) was to have uprated Gamma engines, wooden-bladed VISh-84M propellers, and quicker-retracting main undercarriage legs. Standard hard points for bomb rack mountings were to incorporated into the wings inboard of the engine nacelles and rocket mounts outboard. Fixed armament was intended to be a single 37 mm OKB-16 cannon plus two 12.7 mm UBK (or four BS) machine guns. An alternative scheme involved the mounting of a single 45 mm 111P cannon with twin BS machine guns.

Construction of the KhAI-14C/Ne-2C was never begun. In late July 1941, GAZ-135 (as the KhAI was now designated) was evacuated to Novosibirsk where it was incorporated into Zavod 153. Alas, there was no hope of resuming KhAI-14/Ne-2 production in the east. All engine tooling had been damaged or destroyed by the Luftwaffe bombing of the Zaporozhye rail yards. KhAI supplier Zavod 454 was evacuated from Kiev to Kuibyshev but brought none of the KhAI-14 tooling with it. The KhAI-14/Ne-2 series had become extinct. Fortunately, by then, the superior Ilyushin Il-2 had overcome its teething problems and was being produced in increasingly large numbers.

___________________________

[1] The Ilyushin Il-2 cockpit enclosure differed from the original prototype TsKB-57 unit. The revised canopy (and the decision to adopted the Il-2 windscreen unchanged had necessitated some redesign of the KhAI-14's armoured nose profile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 10, 2019, 01:23:57 AM
The new armored windscreen/canopy and squared-off rudders make this one look ready for a fight!

I especially like how you rendered the camo on the bottom one. Most pleasing to the eye and then some!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 11, 2019, 04:06:25 AM
Cheers Brian. And now, a much more conservative what-if based on Iosif Neman ...
----------------
From his NKVD prison draughting office at design bureau TsKB-29, Iosif Grigorevich Neman was tasked with continuing development of the products Neman had developed as chief designer at the Kharkov Aviation Institute. Production continued of the KhAI-5 reconnaissance monoplane - serving with the VVS as the R-10. However, plans to produce the KhAI-52 ground attack aircraft were faltering. The KhAI-52 was an evolution of the KhAI-51, in turn, an attack variant of the KhAI-5/R-10. However, during its development, the KhAI-52 had been overtaken by the superior qualities of Pavel Sukhoi's new BB-1 (Su-2) short-range bomber. The latter was to replace the R-10 on the production lines at Kharkov just as Sukhoi had replaced Neman as chief designer.

To compete with the Su-2 for production space, Neman had to emphasize a role other than short-range bomber. He chose to focus exclusively on ground attack, eliminating the light bomber aspect of his KhAI-52 design. The resulting KhAI-55 (Ne-4) eliminated the fuselage bomb bay of the KhAI-52 in favour of increased forward-firing armament. To improve manoeuvrability and speed, the KhAI-55 returned to the original, shorter-span wing of the KhAI-51 (KhAI-5bis) and R-10. And the KhAI-52's wing armament of six 7.62 mm machine guns was increased to eight ShKAS guns.

The KhAI-55/Ne-4 could be quickly distinguished from its predecessors by its revised crew accommodations. Both cockpit and observer's turret were positioned closer to the the centre of the fuselage. Made possible by the removal of the bomb bay, this placement was dictated by the use of extensive armour plating to protect the crew members. To maintain controllability, it was essential this armour's weight be kept close to the aircraft's centre of gravity.

Top One of the pre-production Neman Ne-4 ground attack aircraft issued for squadron service in the Winter of 1940-41.

Although the KhAI-55 was accepted for limited service as the Ne-4, it was obvious that there was considerable room for improvement. The KhAI-8 began as a clean-sheet design but was quickly revised to use the basic KhAI-55 airframe. The key differences were further cockpit armouring (with the pilot's canopy taken directly from the delayed Ilyushin Il-2). The flush retracting main undercarriage was replaced by a sturdier gear which retracted rearward into Ilyushin-like underwing pods. This allowed the retracted main wheels to protrude, reducing potential damage in the event of a wheels-up forced landing. More importantly, this undercarriage type also free up the entire wing centre section for fuel tanks.

It had been found with the Ne-4 that, under vigorous low-level manoeuvring, the horizontal tailplane could sometimes blank the rudder. As a simple expedient, the prototype KhAI-55 had its vertical tail moved forward. Testing at the LII-VVS showed that this change corrected the tail blanking problem while increasing rudder authority. Accordingly, this forward-mounted tailplane was also adopted for the KhAI-8.

The KhAI-8 was a promising design but Neman was unable to secure his preferred engine type - the M-88 twin-row radial (as used in the Sukhoi Su-2). In its place, Neman was forced to retain the KhAI-55's large-diameter Shvetsov M-63 engine. The KhAI-8 was accepted for service as the Ne-6 but this attack aircraft was doomed to be underpowered. Neman persisted with an M-88A powered design under the KhAI-82 designation. A further development was to be the KhAI-85 (Ne-8) powered by the forthcoming Shvetsov M-71F radial. Neither of these projects were ever completed. Small numbers of Ne-6s were issued for service use in the desperate days of late 1941 but flew were still flying by the end of the following year.

Bottom Kharkov KhAI-81 (Neman Ne-6A) ground attack aircraft. Note that his sub-type had a forward-firing armament of two 20 mm ShVAK cannons and four 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns. This aircraft is missing the usual Ne-6A underwing racks for RS-82 rocket projectiles.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 11, 2019, 06:37:39 AM
You've totally nailed that 1930's version of art-deco design on that lovely white KhAI-55/Ne-4, apophenia!

What a treat to see an update and one so easy on the eyes too!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 12, 2019, 01:33:30 AM
The real world KhAI-52 for comparison:

(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/684/pics/1_4.jpg)

Mars Models are producing a kit in 1/48 in case you wished to adapt it to recreate these in plastic:

(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29178312_971312803009814_1417801921686667264_o.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=381db59d5dbbd757c2ddc219d0f78080&oe=5D9B6FCA)
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17022368_775857539222009_385371446640514556_n.png?_nc_cat=108&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=faf11348413d3211b18076397dc2c9b7&oe=5D51768A)
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16992152_775857542555342_7699054339938981717_o.png?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=d35ca330c4e7b6ea2a70281b0c69297b&oe=5D91E196)
(https://scontent.fbne6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16991960_775857535888676_5246225963750894868_o.png?_nc_cat=107&_nc_ht=scontent.fbne6-1.fna&oh=152bb72694e173c491218217aa353e9e&oe=5D523B26)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 14, 2019, 07:01:19 AM
Cheers Greg ... great stuff. On RW Neman designs, the main undercarriage always looks underscale to me - I guess its just because those main wheels are so honking big.
____________________

More on Neman ...

When the development of his planned KhAI-85 (Ne-8) with a Shvetsov M-71F radial was cancelled, Iosif Neman switched his focus to an engine that was available. With production of the MiG-3 interceptor winding down, Mikulin's liquid-cooled AM-35 V-12 would soon be available. KhAI received a running AM-35A engine along with a complete MiG-3 cowling from GAZ-1 in Moscow. Suitable engine mounts were devised and this powerplant was quickly adapted to the in-production KhAI-8 (Ne-6) airframe.

The prototype conversion was re-designated KhAI-15 and flown to Tushino for tests by the LII-VVS. However, Neman had already received orders to replace the Ne-6 on the Kharkov production lines as soon as possible with the Mikulin-powered variant - which was to 'recycle' the KhAI-85 designation of Ne-8 for service use. Like the Ne-6, the Ne-8 was to be a dedicated ground attack aircraft (Shturmovik) which was relatively lightly armoured. The Ne-8s were to act as 'fill-ins' until sufficient numbers of fully-armoured Ilyushin Il-2s were available to frontal aviation units of the VVS.

Top Prototype Kharkov KhAI-15 (Neman Ne-8) ground attacker. Note that this aircraft has no wing guns fitted (and yet to be equipped with its radio transmitter).

Conversion of the Kharkov line to Ne-8s was rapid. Two closely-related variants were to proceed down those lines simultaneously. Aft of its firewall, the KhAI-151-1 (Neman Ne-8A) differed from the Ne-6 primarily in having a shortened tailcone (with an optional remote-controlled 'sting' gun) and radiators mounted under the wing centre section. As with the Ne-6, launch rails for RS-82 rocket projectiles were mounted under the outer wing panels. Fixed armament was as per the Ne-6 - two 20 mm ShVAK cannons and four 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns.

Every tenth airframe in this new series would be a KhAI-151-2 (Neman Ne-8P) with revised armament. The 'P' designation suffix was for 'Pushka' or 'Cannon' indicating an additional 20 mm ShVAK per wing. This variant had the outer-wing rocket rails deleted to reduce weight. Few of the 'Pushka' version were completed but, when available, the Ne-8Ps were employed as flight leaders on strafing runs.

Bottom Kharkov KhAI-151-2 (Neman Ne-8P) in temporary Winter camouflage. This aircraft has its turret gun in the ready position (with the turret fairing stowed). Note the tailcone 'stinger' gun (often removed to save weight).

When Kharkov fell to the Germans, Neman was working on a revised version - the Ne-8M (KhAI-154) which was to be powered by the new Mikulin AM-38 engines and armed with 37 mm cannons. Neman had yet to receive an official 'go-ahead' on his proposed Ne-8M (KhAI-154). An obvious objection would have been the increasing availability of the superior Il-2 which employed the same powerplant. With the fall of Kharkov, those became moot points.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 15, 2019, 02:15:51 AM
The camo on the bottom one is pure eye-candy!

Your talent is off the charts, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 16, 2019, 07:52:09 AM
Cheers Brian. I have one more Yak-4 based posting to go ... but forgot to bring my thumb drive with me today  :-[  (I'll post 'em on Monday, PST).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 18, 2019, 04:34:23 AM
As promised, my final installment on Yak-4 derivatives ...

In 1940, Yakovlev produced a fighter variant of the Yak-2 recce-bomber. Designated BB-22IS (aka I-29), this  'least-mod' fighter derivative failed to impress during testing and was quickly abandoned. A more thorough re-design resulted in a heavy interceptor, internally designated BB-22TI (for Heavy Destroyer BB-22). This variant would have the crew compartments moved to the centre-of-gravity with a new nosecone containing a heavy cannon armament. Construction of a prototype was approved for evaluation.

The Yakovlev 'BB-22TI' was assigned an official designation of DIS-3 (for Dvukmotorny Istrebitel Soprovozhdeniya or Twin-Engine Escort Fighter). This fit better with VVS policy goals but, in fact, Alexandr Yakovlev had not intended for his design be an escort. Although ordered as the DIS-3 escort fighter, officialdom was quite aware that Yakovlev was building a heavy interceptor. [1] Based as it was on the BB-22 airframe, the prototype DIS-3 was completed quite quickly. It was flown without armour or armament but performance was not exceptional. The DIS-3 inherited the BB-22 series' instability.

There were also growing concerns about the DIS-3's intended armament installation. Could Soviet industry produce sufficient ShKAS cannons to satisfy general VVS needs let alone the 6-gun armament proposed for the DIS-3? In the end, the DIS-3 prototype never flew with its offensive armament. The entire programme was ultimately cancelled and the prototype was turned over to the Letno-Issledovatel'skii Institut - the VVS' Flight Research Institute - for purely experimental purposes.

Top LII-VVS Yakovlev DIS-3 fitted with four Western 'Gispano' 20 mm cannons for comparative testing with Soviet ShKAS guns, 1942.

A much more radical fighter development of the BB-22 design was the I-36 high-altitude interceptor. Devised in cooperation with the Moscow-based GAZ-1 factory, the Yakovlev I-36 combined a revised BB-22 airframe with the huge Mikulin AM-35 engine from the MiG-3 fighter. This combination was quite apropos. After building 81 BB-22s, GAZ-1 had switched to producing MiG-3 fighters. As such, the Moscow plant was ideally suited to building the I-36 airframe. However, the I-36 was no straightforward adaptation of the BB-22 to a single powerplant.

For its high-altitude role, the I-36 was to be fitted with twin turbosuperchargers - one mounted on each side of the rear fuselage. A large belly fairing contained a pair of engine coolant radiators flanking a large intercooler for the turbosuperchargers. In appearance, the I-36 resembled Yakovlev's I-26 frontal aviation fighter. But the I-36 was a much larger aircraft. It was ordered off the drawing board into limited production as a target defence interceptor for the PVO (Protivovozdushnoi Oborony) as the TVI-4 (Tyazhelyi Vysotny Istrebitel or Heavy High-Altitude Destroyer). [2]

As with the DIS-3, prototype construction was quickly completed but delivery of its turbosuperchargers and other specialized equipment was another matter. Once the German invasion was underway, doubts emerged about the wisdom of expending resources on defending targets which then might need to be immediately abandoned to the rapidly advancing enemy. When the TVI-4 prototype suffered a turbo fire on its fourth flight, a final nail was driven into the coffin of Yakovlev's high-altitude interceptor. GAZ-1 would continue with MiG-3 fighter production. The PVO would not return to a high-altitude fighter requirement until the middle of 1943. [3]

________________________

[1] Including 'escort' in the official designation may have been an attempt to dodge accusations of duplicating the heavy interceptor efforts of Vsevolod Tairov's design bureau.

[2] This designation was a strange one. The '4' in TVI-4 obviously related to 'Yak-4' but, under the Soviet system, fighter aircraft were usually given 'odd' number designations.

[3] This requirement would be satisfied by the I-220 (aka MiG-11) - a much smaller aircraft than Yakovlev's TVI-4 - but no production was undertaken. By the time that the MiG was under test, the threat of Luftwaffe bombers beyond the Urals had largely disappeared.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 18, 2019, 04:39:44 AM
Those are both excellent and well worth the wait, apophenia!

I especially like your treatment of the turbo-supercharger. I imagine it's not easy to capture that look.

The bit in the back story about not being able to secure enough of the right parts was delightful and has a ring of truth to it.

Very well done!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on June 18, 2019, 07:47:16 AM
Those are really long turbo feeds, as they're mounted exposed
to the air I have to wonder about the effect on thermal efficiency
and velocity, especially as altitude increased.
 ???

I realize the P-47 had long pipes, but, being mounted inside the
skin they would probably have lost less heat than if exposed to
the slipstream.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 20, 2019, 05:54:20 AM
Thanks for the feedback.

Jon: Good point. I was mainly looking for a simple way of attaching the feeds to a welded steel-tube fuselage. Sounds like I also found a way of reducing turbo efficiency to around zero  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2019, 03:46:40 AM
As threatened, I'm reposting an image (sans backstory) from my aborted CleanBC thread for the Beasts of Burden GB. I may finish off other, related images and post them later ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on June 21, 2019, 03:52:18 AM
Those are simply magnificent and that is one of the classiest liveries I've seen recently.

I especially like the details of the poor tech fixing the engine on the bottom example.

Pure eye-candy, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2019, 04:00:51 AM
Cheers Brian. I'm keen on the Pacific Coastal livery too. I've also got a few invented airline liveries in the works to follow ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on June 21, 2019, 04:09:09 AM
Bring QCA back from the dead.  :smiley:

Perhaps a Beriev A-40 or Shinmaywa US-2 in the black and yellow livery.  ;D

(https://www.aviationmegastore.com/img/prod/full/8/0/48261_0.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 21, 2019, 04:47:48 AM
I used to see the Pacific Coastal Saab 340s a lot when I was at YYC, they're used in WestJet's WestJet Link partnership and had WestJet scheme although I did see the normal schemes too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 21, 2019, 05:53:41 AM
Bring QCA back from the dead.  :smiley:

I like it! First aircraft would have to be titled 'Spirit of Jim Spilsbury', of course  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on June 21, 2019, 01:51:02 PM
Perhaps a Beriev A-40 or Shinmaywa US-2 in the black and yellow livery.  ;D

 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 25, 2019, 05:20:34 AM
Continuing on with the CleanBC theme ...

Air BC was founded in 1980 by the Jim Pattison Group but 85% of Air BC was bought by Air Canada in 1987. In January 2001, Air BC had been merged into Air Canada Regional Inc operating as Jazz. Then, in 2002, Air BC ceased operations altogether.

Always the canny businessman, in 2020, Jimmy Pattison ceased the opportunity to relaunch Air BC as an independent regional airline. Air BC became the driving force behind the new Jim Pattison Aviation Group. [1] Original plans were to resume operations with an updated version of the old fleet - BAe 146s and Dash 8s. That scheme was shelved while awaiting a potential release of the Rolls-Royce/Airbus E-Fan X concept as an upgrade for the BAe 146. In the meantime, Air BC would be relaunched with 'short-bodied' Dash 8s converted to LNG to satisfy CleanBC requirements.

The Dash 8 LNG conversions were a joint project of two subsidiaries of the Jim Pattison Group - Montebello Fuel Systems and Atlantic Aviation. Although Air BC livery suggested that the airline had wrapped itself in the BC flag, the Montebello pressurized LNG tanks were made in the US and all installation and systems integration was handled by Atlantic Aviation Palm Springs. The conversion was unusual in the positioning of its 'Highbrow' rooftop LNG tank mountings - with four tanks forward of the wing and another four tanks aft, all covered by a aerodynamic fairing of  composite construction. Filling these high-mounted tanks was all done from a close-to-the-tarmac, central refuelling point.

Top Air BC Dash 8 LNG, a DHC-8-201 conversion operated as 'City of Kelowna' (C-GJPE)

Another BC airline to operate LNG-powered Dash 8s was Air Tofino. [2] Although home-based at Abbotsford, Air Tofino actually operated a scheduled circuit between YVR (Vancouver's South Airport), Comox, Tofino, and Victoria (Pat Bay). The Air Tofino fleet consisted of three Dash 8 100 series aircraft - two DHC-8-102s and a single DHC-8-103. All three aircraft had been refurbished and had Dash 8 LNG conversion kits developed by Abbotsford-based Conair.

The Dash 8 LNG conversion kit was easily identifiable by its lower fuselage-side 'pannier' tanks -  immediately dubbed 'love handles' by ramp crews. A somewhat less sophisticated arrangement than Air BC's 'Highbrow' tank mountings, the Conair 'panniers' were less expensive to install making them an accessible conversion for smaller operators like Air Tofino. As a result, Conair kit and installation sales for the Dash 8 LNG were fairly brisk while, in British Columbia, the 'Highbrow' conversion was used only by Air BC.

Bottom Air Tofino's 'Chesterman Beach' (C-GTAE), a DHC-8-103 with the Conair Dash 8 LNG conversion kit

____________________

[1] Initially, the Jim Pattison Aviation Group was a somewhat unfocused organization which subsumed non-aviation enterprises from the Vancouver-based conglomerate (such as Jim Pattison Packaging Group's Montebello Packaging).

[2] Air Tofino wasn't a revived airline. Although largely inactive since 2015, the owners of Sechelt-based Tofino Air refused to sell the rights to the name of their one-floatplane operation.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 05, 2019, 05:37:08 AM
Last bit for the CleanBC theme ...

This is a hybrid turbine-electric Short 330 conversion. The E330 represented an extensive rebuilding of used Short 330 (or C-23 Sherpa) airframes. The original PT6A-45 turboprop engines were replaced by MagniX mag1050 electric motors. The upper fuselage was restructured with banks of Li-Ion batteries replacing the turbine 330's fuel tanks. The most obvious change, however, was in the new rear fuselage.

That replacement rear fuselage was based upon that of the longer Short 360 aircraft. But there was a key difference. Aft of the luggage bay was housed a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW210EG turboshaft. NASA inlets in either side of the fuselage walls would be opened to feed this turbine engine. The 1,100 shp turboshaft itself drove an electric generator able to supply power directly to the MagniX motors or be used to recharge the Li-Ion banks. As a side benefit, the PW210EG exhaust provided a modest amount of thrust.

The aircraft shown is in service with Orca Airlines. Another resuscitated airline name, this incarnation was a rebranding of Vancouver-based small carrier, KD Air. Still operating from YVR's South Airport, Orca flew scheduled flights to YAZ (Tofino-Long Beach Airport) and YQQ (Comox Valley Airport). Along with their distinctive 'Killer Whale' scheme, Orca Airlines aircraft each received an appropriate name. The name assigned to C-GORC was 'Namu'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 05, 2019, 08:27:11 AM
I've really enjoyed the Clean BC theme and you have an enviable talent for liveries which I imagine are quite difficult to get looking so realistic.

I thought I saw an article recently about a Canadian alt-fuel or electric/gas hybrid but I read so much stuff that sometimes I have a hard time remembering it.

It'd be fun to see you turn this theme on its head and do steampunk coal-fired aircraft too.

Great stuff and I bet you could sell prints of this theme like hotcakes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 06, 2019, 02:19:37 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on July 06, 2019, 02:24:35 AM
Nice, and I have an Aeroclub 1/72 Sherpa in my stash --- hmm ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 06, 2019, 02:47:12 AM
 :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 06, 2019, 05:25:31 AM
... do steampunk coal-fired aircraft too.

Oooo, tempting  >:D  Thanks folks!
-----------------------------------------------

This is one I didn't get finished in time for the Beasts of Burden' (Transport/Airliners etc) GB ...

The Curtiss 'Condor Monoplane'

The Curtiss Condor II biplane was immediately outclassed by the appearance of the Boeing 247 monoplane. As an expedient, the Curtiss-Wright board elected to produce a monoplane derivative of the Condor II. To that end, Don Berlin, the chief engineer of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation's Airplane Division, oversaw the design of a new set of cantilevered monoplane wings. Of metal construction, aft of the forward spar, these wings - and their ailerons - were cloth covered. Once completed, the new wings were applied to an incompleted AT-32D fuselage.

It was intended that production versions of the new T-36 transport would be metal-clad. However, to expedite the 'Condor Monoplane' prototype conversion, a cloth-covered fuselage and empennage from the AT-32D Condor II biplane were retained. The biplane's nacelled and undercarriage were also retained to keep development cost down. Powered by twin 720 hp Wright SGR-1820-F2 Cyclone 9-cylinder radial engines, the T-36 'Condor Monoplane' prototype proved to be a stable flier but somewhat slower than its Boeing rival.

The Curtiss-Wright CW-36E 'High-Altitude Condor III'

The 'Condor Monoplane' conversion had a comparatively short life-span, donating its wings and nacelles to an early pre-production series Curtiss AT-36 Condor III. The fuselage was then used to test out different cabin and cockpit arrangements. Later in life, however, the 'Condor Monoplane' fuselage formed the basis for a dramatic transformation - the CW-36E 'High-Altitude Condor III'. To become the CW-36E, the fuselage was gutted to accommodate a self-contained pressure vessel. This sausage-shaped pressurized cabin was nested within the original fuselage structure - or, at least, its lower and after portions.

The CW-36E fuselage conversion was mated with wings from a production series CW-36C Condor III (complete with rubber-covered de-icing strips and twin landing lights). The powerplants were uprated, Wright R-1820-45 Cyclone radials which produced 975 hp through exhaust-driven Curtiss-Wright TC-38A turbosuperchargers. The ultimate plan was to lengthen the CW-36E's wingtips to increase altitude potential even further. However, this never happened. The tempermental turbosuperchargers proved the 'High-Altitude Condor IIIs' literal downfall. On the CW-36E's second proving flight, the starboard TC-38A unit exploded.

Despite an inoperative, burning engine and the loss of some of the fabric covering on the starboard wing, the Curtiss-Wright test pilot was able to ditch the stricten CW-36E gently into Lake Ontario. Both pilot and flight engineer were able to evacuate the aircraft before it sank. Although a blow, the loss of the 'High-Altitude Condor III' provided Curtiss-wright with useful information on turbosupercharging and pressurization. The next design - the CW-20 Commando - would do without turbos but plans remained in place for a modest degree of cabin pressurization.

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 06, 2019, 05:31:18 AM
The lower one looks a bit like a flying bus.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 06, 2019, 05:53:37 AM
The lower one looks a bit like a flying bus.

Or a tram.  Proof that an excessive number of wings wasn't Curtiss' only problem in civil aviation  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on July 06, 2019, 09:22:28 AM
Interesting what-if with your usual gorgeous art.  I do believe, though, that it was the Boeing 247 not 249, that obsoleted the Condor II.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on July 06, 2019, 11:02:26 AM
Those cockpit windows in the first one give a little Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon look.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 06, 2019, 08:29:50 PM
Those are some great pieces of art and you could say the top one led to the Curtiss C-46 Commando and few would doubt it.

The bottom one is aces too and who hasn't wondered what a Condor monoplane would look like?

Outstanding and pure eye-candy! Especially the metal treatment and windows!

10/10 would fly again!  :smiley:

Brian da Basher

P.S. FYI the Transports GB has been extended two weeks until July 14th if memory serves.


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on July 07, 2019, 01:33:37 AM
Those cockpit windows in the first one give a little Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon look.
Flash Gordon, yes; but it's entirely too aesthetically appealing to fit in with the craft of the future depicted in the original Buck Rogers serial.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 07, 2019, 02:40:28 AM
The lower one looks a bit like a flying bus.


Or a tram.  Proof that an excessive number of wings wasn't Curtiss' only problem in civil aviation  ;)


Curtiss Scooter.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Curtiss_airboat.jpg)

A streamlined REO pulling a Curtiss Aerocar.
http://theoldmotor.com/?p=148503 (http://theoldmotor.com/?p=148503)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6a/21/54/6a2154d445740625b386adde3ed5f67c.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 07, 2019, 03:53:48 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 07, 2019, 06:48:57 AM
Thanks folks!

Interesting what-if with your usual gorgeous art.  I do believe, though, that it was the Boeing 247 not 249, that obsoleted the Condor II.

Fixed. Thank you Evan for your embarassingly necessary proof-reading  :-[


P.S. FYI the Transports GB has been extended two weeks until July 14th if memory serves.

Dang ... I missed Jon's extension post!  Oh well, snooze ya lose  :P

Curtiss Scooter.

Nailed it  :smiley:
_____________________________

Curtiss-Wright CW-36 Condor III Wrap-Up

Even before the pre-production Curtiss AT-36 Condor III' had flown, it was apparent that the obsolete fabric-covered AT-32D fuselage would need replacing. For the AT-36C Condor III, a new, stressed-skin metal passenger compartment was devised. [1] However, the Condor III retained its predecessors' fabric-covered wings and steel-tube rear fuselage. The most apparent change was an entirely new twin fin and rudder arrangement replacing the single-finned empennage inherited from the AT-32 biplane.

With all of its changes, the production model AT-36C Condor III was more stylish but such attempts at updates seemed only to draw attention to its less advanced features. By the time of the AT-36C's appearance, the Boeing 247D had been joined the even more advanced Douglas DC-2. Suddenly, the 'new' airliner from Curtiss-Wright appeared undeniably dated. The Curtiss-Wright board grew bored with the entire 'Condor Monoplane' programme and voted to cancel it. Resources would, instead, be directed towards a much more advanced replacement type ... which would later emerge as the CW-20 Commando.

With no firm orders for the AT-36C coming in from airlines, Curtiss-Wright offered the first five aircraft to the US Army Air Corps. The four production airframes were finished as CT-36Cs and delivered to the USAAC as YC-31A cargo transports. [2] The Curtiss demonstrator (AT-36C-1) Condor III airliner was rebuilt to VIP AT-36C-1AC standards to become the Air Corps' sole YC-31B. In the end, no airline orders were ever received and the fifth production Condor III would be the last of its kind.

Prior to the programme being cancelled, one  further attempt was made to attract the USAAC's attention. This result in the Curtiss-Wright CW-36D Condor IIIB medium bomber prototype. [3] With superior, all-metal Martin B-10 and B-12 bombers already in service, the compromise CW-36D failed to impress the Air Corps. Attempts were made to market the CW-36D to former BT-32 customers - Argentina, China, and Colombia. No orders resulted but, eventually, Colombia decided to buy the prototype 'Condor III Bomber' to fly alongside their in-service BT-32s. With that, Curtiss-Wright turned its attention away from bombers and focused on the design of modern trainers and combat aircraft instead.

_______________________________________

[1] In the retroactively-applied Curtiss-Wright designation system, the Curtiss AT-36C became the Curtiss-Wright CW-36C. Properly, only the prototype and Curtiss demonstrator (NX9078) was an AT-36C model. The four production airframes were all finished as CT-36C cargo-carriers.

[2] These C-31 designations were odd one. The original XC-31 had been a single-engined Kreider-Reisner which the USAAC had quickly passed on to NACA's Langley Research Center. Thus, there was no relationship at all between the sole XC-31 and the later Curtiss YC-31A transport.

[3] Although always a St. Louis product, like the AT-36C, the CW-36D bomber was originally designated as the Curtiss BE-36D (though generally referred to as the 'Condor IIID').
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 07, 2019, 08:25:07 AM
The bomber prototype reminds me of the Martin B-10 export version. If it had liposuction and a make-over by a professional stylist.

Very appealing indeed, especially the way you rendered the metal parts and the livery!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 08, 2019, 12:52:50 AM
The bomber prototype reminds me of the Martin B-10 export version. If it had liposuction and a make-over by a professional stylist.


Agreed
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2019, 06:18:16 AM
The bomber prototype reminds me of the Martin B-10 export version. If it had liposuction and a make-over by a professional stylist.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 12, 2019, 04:59:38 AM
My next notion was prompted in part by an early concept drawing of the Ju 288 (attached below). That drawing appears to show a near-standard Ju 88 tailplane (or at least fin and rudder). The drawing shows defensive and offensive armament positions. The latter show three rows of large-calibre bombs in the long bomb bay. The former consist of twin MG 81Z-armed remotely-controlled barbettes and what looks like two fixed MG 81 machine guns in the nose [now confirmed].

For the copy I have, the drawing's quality is poor. The top line of the caption beneath the cockpit seems to read "2 MG 81 Starr" or '2 inflexible MG 81' (the bottom line of this caption is anyone's guess). So, whereas the barbette guns make good use of the MG 81Z's compact arrangement, the fixed nose guns are single guns (as opposed to Zwillings). I'm assuming this means one gun on either side of the nose ... but it's hard to be sure.

Anyway, this drawing shows a concept still some way from being the realized Ju 288. The RW armament and crew arrangements still needed to be refined. But that '88-style tail (along with Greg's posted images of Ju 88 prototype modified to test Ju 288-style fuselage noses) got me thinking about a fairly radical revision of the Ju 88 to act as gap-filler between the existing schnellbomber and Junkers' submission for the Bomber B Programm.

(To be continued)

[Added] Another variation on that drawing is captioned: "Ein frühes Projekt der Ju 288 (EF-74?) mit Höhen-Dieselmotoren Jumo 223 für den Langstreckeneinsatz." (An early project of the Ju 288 (EF-74?) With high-altitude [1,650 ps] Jumo 223 diesel engines for long-distance use.)

A slightly later section drawing shows the rounded twin tails later introduced by Hans Wocke.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2019, 04:57:20 AM
The Bomber C Programm - An Interim Gap-Filler for Bomber B

The Ju 188 was designed as a replacement for both the Ju 86G-1 and He 111H series medium bombers. Initially known by an internal designation EF 79, the impetus for the Ju 188 was the Dessau design office's certain knowledge that completion of their complex EF 73/Ju 288A to meet the Bomber B Programm would take longer than expected. [1] As potential supplier of Jumo 211s for the Do 217E, Junkers was also well-informed about developments at Dornier. If the Do 217 series was seen as an interim Bomber B fill-in, the proposed Ju 188 could be viewed in the same light. [2]

The goal of Dornier's Do 217 programme was to produce a schnellbomber to replace the Do 17Z while also filling a heavy divebomber requirement. To differentiate its interim Bomber B concept, Dessau proposed that the Ju 188 also be a medium bomber (He 111H replacement) with a secondary role as a torpedo-bomber. Junkers was quite aware that Dornier had a lead with its Do 217 so the Dessau design would have to be heavily based upon the current Ju 88A series schnellbomber airframe. To that Ju 88 basis, Junkers hoped to incorporate a number of features from the as-yet unbuilt EF 73/Ju 288 Bomber B candidate.

At the time, the record-breaking Ju 88V5 prototype was being modified to test the forward fuselage and flight deck arrangement for the Ju 288. [3] In modified form, this new forward fuselage form could form the basis for an interim bomber. The new 3-Mann-Kanzel (3-man cockpit) would be nearly identical in form to the mock Ju 288 forward fuselage and similarly unpressurized. Since the Ju 88's fuselage was much shallower than the Ju 288, it became possible to deeping the bomb bays to match the profile of the Ju 288 nose. As proposed for the EF 79/Ju 188, the overall forward fuselage would be much shortened compared with the Ju 88V5 (or, indeed, the proposed Ju 288A).

Top Prototype Junkers Ju 88V5 modified to test Ju 188 3-man cockpit. The Ju 88V5 would later be further modified to test the Ju 188B's twin tailplanes.

The RLM's Technische Amt accepted the Junkers proposal and began a new Bomber C Programm for interim bombers including the Do 217 and Junker's Ju 188. In the initial Ju 188 scheme, the Ju 288's advanced remotely-controlled defensive weapons were to be used. However, it soon became apparent that armament trials with the Ju 288's remotely-controlled barbettes would likely not be ready for another year. As a result, the Ju 188 would have to be redesigned for a more conventional defensive armament. By the time this was obvious, the first prototype Ju 188V1 was already nearing completion. It would be finished and flown without defensive guns ... and, indeed, much of its other operational equipment.

Work on the Ju 188 V1 began using compenents intended for the Ju 88 V10 prototype. The longer nose dictated a similar lengthening of the rear fuselage to maintain the centre of gravity. This was accomplished by inserting an addition 2.50 metre fuselage section ahead of the standard Ju 88 rear fuselage. The wing was also a stock Ju 88A-1 item but with span-extending wing tips added (akin to those anticipated for later-production Ju 88As). However, this not the intended wing shape for the planned Ju 188A series bombers. That revised wing would need to wait for the second prototype Ju 188 V2.

Bottom Prototype Junkers Ju 188V1 as flown. Note Ju 88A-4 style wings and cowlings. Also note blank upper gun-aiming position (due to shifting defensive armament plans).

(To be continued)
_______________________________

[1] The key issues with the EF 73/Ju 288 were technological matters further complicated when specific Bomber B requirements were finally released by the Technische Amt of the RLM in May 1939. Redesign of the EF 73 was begun under Dipl.Ing. Heinrich Hertel, recently arrived at Dessau from Heinkel.

[2] Junkers actually made two 'interim Bomber B' proposals. The first was a 'least mod' version of the recently resurrected, smooth-nosed Ju 88B. This line was pursued further - but as a potential replacement for the Ju 88A series unrelated to the Bomber C Programm.

[3] The Ju 88V2 prototype had already been successfully fitted with an aerodynamic 'shape' simulating the EF 73/Ju 288 forward fuselage for flight trials.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 13, 2019, 05:21:31 AM
Looks good but I'm not sure what gain one would have over a standard Ju-188 or even late model Ju-88
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2019, 07:20:08 AM
Nor am I ... I was mainly interested in the look of a Ju 288 nose on an '88 airframe   ;D

You would gain larger bomb bays (no need for Ju 88's draggy wing racks). Of course, you got that with the Ju 88A-15 too. So, think of this as akin to an 'A-15 with 'P-1 rear gunner position.

As for the Ju 188, I was thinking of the Ju 88B as a more direct evolution of the Ju 88 airframe while my  '188' has a larger wing and potential for remote defensive armament.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 14, 2019, 04:32:49 AM
I especially like the new ventral gun behind the bomb bay. Looks very plausible and I've never seen a Junkers 88 or 188 for that matter rendered better! You captured that famous camo scheme perfectly. Most excellent, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 16, 2019, 03:46:35 AM
Junkers Ju 188A-0 - First Stab at the Bomber C Programm

While the Ju 188V2 was being completed, Junkers launched pre-series production of the Ju 188A-0 model at Dessau. In reality, the entire Ju 188A-0 run was made up of prototypes to be assigned to difference research and experimental task. The Ju 188V2 was used primarily for level-bombing trials as well as experimenting with fixed Handley-Page slots on a revised tailplane. The Ju 188A-0/V3 was the first of several airframes used to test experimental defensive armaments arrangements.

The Ju 188A-0/V3 was fitted with a single, belly-mounted remotely-controlled barbette. This turret could be controlled from either the nose position or the belly sighting station. This proved much more difficult in practice than in theory and the proposed retractable upper barbette was never fitted. A fixed (but wobble-mounted) tailcone armament of four MG 17 machine guns was also fitted. The latter was considered a success but the remotely-controlled barbettes were an abject failure. The Ju 188A-0/V3 would later be rebuilt to V5 standards.

At  request of the Technische Amt, the Ju 188A-0/V5 was fitted with the same defensive barbettes as planning for the Messerschmitt Me 210 fighter. [1] These remotely-controlled FDSL 131/1B turrets were mounted in the aft-fuselage extension 'plug'. As in the Me 210A, twin Revi 25B gun sights were mounted on a moveable tube at the rear of B-Stand - the mid-upper gun position. The FDSL 131/1B turrets could not be controlled from the belly C-Stand position. Instead, the belly gunner was given a flexible pair of MG 15 guns (to be replaced by an MG 81Z when available). The C-Stand nose guns remained two fixed MG 17s - again, to be replaced with MG81s. [2]

Neither the Ju 188A-0/V3 or V5 impressed during their trials at the Luftwaffe's Rechlin test centre. None of the remotely-controlled defensive systems seemed mature - or reliable - enough to be considered for service use. Junkers received instruction to shelf work on remote barbettes for the time being and focus on providing a manually-operated gun armament heavy enough to survive then-current operational conditions.

(To be continued)

___________________________________

[1] The FDSL 131/1B were not meant to be an operational Ju 188 armament. It was intended that the FDSL barbettes would be scaled up to accommodate 2 cm MG-FF cannons.

[2] The revised Ju 188A-0/V3 differed in having a single, flexibly-mounted MG 15 in its nose glazing (as an alternative, 'cheek' guns were also considered). The V3's belly position was later fitted with a flexible MG-FF on a reinforced mount.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 16, 2019, 06:10:47 AM
There's a bit of Russian flavor to the ventral position on that top one. If you gave it Bulgarian markings and claimed it was a native-produced prototype, few would doubt you.

You really have a knack for that famous Luft camo!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 16, 2019, 10:17:00 PM
Really like the look of the Ju 188! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 19, 2019, 05:08:27 AM
Junkers Ju 188C series - Co-winner of Luftwaffe's Bomber C Programm

Several Ju 188 prototypes were fitted with manual armaments to prove the proposed Ju 188B concept. None of these prototypes met with approval of the RLM or Erprobungsstelle Rechlin - the Luftwaffe's test centre. On Ju 188V9, two types of nose positions were tested - one based on the swivel mount from the Ju 86, the other on the in-production mount for the He 111 bomber. Neither option proved very useful within the tight confines of the very narrow Ju 188 fuselage. Several manual mounts were also tested in the C-Stand belly position. The Ju 188V9 trialled a single 2.0 cm MG FF cannon mount while the Ju 188V10 trialled both a 7.92 mm MG 81Z mount and paired 13 mm MG 131s. Neither approached proved completely acceptable.

Of the defensive weapon system trialled, the most promising was a hydraulically-operated rotating turret armed with an MG 131 machine gun. This Drehlafette DL 131 turret was made available for trials in late 1941 with production due to commence in early 1942. This was adopted as the solution for the B-Stand mid-upper position. For the A-Stand nose position, it was concluded that a flexible mount was impractical and probably tactically unnecessary - nose defence would consist of two fixed MG 81s. For the belly it was decided to return to the Me 210's remotely-controlled FDSL 131/1B turrets, albeit mounted lower on the fuselage and with the aiming 'tube' mounted in the  C-Stand position.

Change of Power - Junkers Ju 188C series' Jumo 321 M-18 Engines

While the Ju 188A had been powered by the same Junkers Jumo 211 V-12s as the Ju 88, it had always been planned to install more powerful engines in the Bomber C candidate airframe. Alas, the multi-block Jumo 222 engine was running late. More promising was the resurrected Jumo 231 expected to deliver a more modest 1,700 hp (for take-off). The Jumo 231 was a triple-banked 'M-18' engine - effectively comprised of three Jumo 211D cylinder banks. Having been test-flown in the nose of a Ju 52/3m, a second set of airworthy Jumo 231As were installed in a converted Ju 188A prototype - the Ju 188V7. To handle the extra weight of these larger engines, the Ju 188V7 was also fitted with the sturdier main undercarriage of the Ju 288. This installation was entirely successful other than its four-bladed propellers.

For the pre-production Ju 188C-0, three-bladed VDM 'paddle' props were fitted with improved performance at altitude - as did extended wing tips. To speed production start-up, the Ju 188C-1 abandoned the longer-span wing tips in favour of standard, Ju 188A-0-style wings. The Ju 188C-1 also differed from the 'C-0 in having the FDSL turrets fitted (whereas pre-production aircraft had manual gun mounts armed with MG 81Zs). In service, the triple-banks Jumo 231 engines were found to generally produce a maximum power closer to 1,600 hp. This was seen as a worthwhile increase over the Jumo 211D despite the Jumo 231's much increased dry weight. Finally, the RLM and Rechlin were satisfied with results. The Ju 188C joined the Do 217E as a production type to satisfy the Luftwaffe's Bomber C Programm.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 19, 2019, 06:45:55 AM
Those are so magnificently rendered I bet you could fool lots of people into thinking they were real.

Is it just me or is that tail begging for a gun position on the end?

Great stuff apophenia and always a treat to see more of your work!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 19, 2019, 07:15:25 AM
Cheers Brian. I toyed with a B-25 style gun position but couldn't figure out how to get around that tailwheel  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 20, 2019, 03:11:29 AM
Cheers Brian. I toyed with a B-25 style gun position but couldn't figure out how to get around that tailwheel  :P


Perhaps do something extended using the He-177 tail gun position as inspiration:

(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/he-177-cutaway-tail-jpg.500853/)

Either the earlier version:

(http://i59.tinypic.com/16051y9.jpg)

or the later:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-676-7972A-34,_Flugzeug_Heinkel_He_177,_Heckkanone.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/9tg008.jpg)


Of course, in keeping with the theme, perhaps the Ju288 tail gun position would be the way to go

(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/v3-jpg.521810/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 23, 2019, 08:18:45 AM
Great images Greg and surprisingly compact tail gun arrangements. However, I've been distracted from Ju 188s ... and its all Brian's fault!
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8647.msg157548#new (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8647.msg157548#new)

First, a little background about Liechtenstein's 'air force' ...

_______________________________________

Luftverteidigung für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein - Air Defence for Liechtenstein

Aerial defence of the Principality of Liechtenstein was always the responsibility of the Armee des Fürstentums Liechtenstein - Luftfahrtbranche. As the full name suggests, the AFL-LFB was part of the Principality's army. Properly speaking, the AFL-LFB was a component of the air defence section - the AFL-Luftverteidigung or AFL-LV - which also included 'Flabtruppen' (Flab Trp) anti-aircraft units and a Fliegertelegraphen-Kompanie. [1]

Princely Trainers

The first powered military aircraft in Liechtenstein was a German Dietrich DP VIIa parasol-winged trainer. Although a modest little 2-seater with a 65 hp Siemens-Halske Sh 4 engine, this monoplane proved too 'hot' for the AFL-LFB's original field at the Vaduz sports ground. The DP VIIa was sold to private Swiss interests and replaced by a used Austrian Hopfner HS.8/29 pending a more considered trainer selection. The winner of that contest was a German Udet U 12 Flamingo biplane (beating out the rival Austrian Phoenix Meteor 2c). The new Udet joined the HS.8/29  trainer at a new airfield constructed at Schaan. [2] In the lead-up to WW2, attempts were made to purchase two new Wiener Neustädter-built Lampich NL-XXII biplane trainers. However, these Austrian-built trainers were never delivered. The Anschluss would likely have complicated this purchase but, in the meantime, a deal was made for all AFL-LFB flight training to be done under contract with the Swiss Flugwaffe. [3]

One Wiener Neustädter-built Lampich design did serve ... in a sense. The AFL-LFB had access to Aeroklub der Liechtenstein's Gerle 16 2-seater for use as a glider tug for the military's pair of Aecherli Pfau 7 training gliders. Those 1927 Swiss biplane gliders were scheduled to be replaced by Aecherli Zögling copies but available funding was, instead, redirected towards the purchase of combat aircraft. In the meantime, a second-hand, civilian Hopfner HS.8/29 two-seat trainer was acquired from Austria to replaced the written-off Udet U 12Ö.

Uberwacht - Reconnaissance Aircraft for the Principality

The first AFL-LFB 'combat' type had been an unarmed Hüffer H 9 biplane bought used in 1932. Many sources mis-identify the Hüffer as a 'DLFW D.VIIIa' - an understandable confusion as the H 9 and DLFW D.VIIIa are virtually identical 2-seat derivatives of the wartime Fokker D.VIII fighter. [4] The first real combat type was the Fokker C.V-E reconnaissance biplane. Four of these Doflug-built Fokkers were bought second-hand from the Swiss in 1935. To that point, all AFL-LFB aircraft fell under Luftkommando 1 at Flugplatz Schaan. So too did the new Fokkers but, at this stage, sub-units were formed. The 2-seat C.V-Es were assigned to the newly formed Aufklärungsstaffel 3 (AufklSt 3). [5] The Fokker purchase was part of a package deal which also included Liechtenstein's second combat type - four EKW-built Dewoitnine D.9 biplane fighters.

(To be continued ...)

____________________________________________________

[1] The Flab Trp - or Fliegerabwehrtruppen in full - also acted as Alpine Pioneers since these units had plenty of experience emplacing Flak cannons into mountainsides.

[2] Although not ideal, the valley floor at Schaan made for a better airfield than the Vadux Sportsplatz. Judged surplus to AFL-LFB needs, the Hopfner trainer was quickly sold off to an Austrian civilian owner.

[3] AFL-LFB basic aircraft maintenance training was also undertaken by the Flugwaffe at Thun. The AFL-LFB retained its glider fleet and single Udet Flamingo biplane to vet potential candidates for flight training in Switzerland.

[4] This confusion likely stems from the AFL-LFB having briefly considered the DLFW D.VIII which differed from the Hüffer H 9 (and D.VIIIa) only in the engine type installed.

[5] All non-combat aircraft were assigned to LK1's training unit, Schulstaffel A (SchSt A)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 23, 2019, 08:19:48 AM
Dewoitine 'Wansti' - Tubby Teeth for Liechtenstein's AFL-LFB

Bought along with the Fokker C.V-E recce biplanes, the four Dewoitine D.9s were being phased out in Switzerland. However, the D.9s suited Liechtensteinische needs ideally. With gentle handling and relatively short field requirements, the tubby parsol-winged fighters were well-matched to conditions on Liechtenstein's single airfield. The Dewoitnines were given the appropriately warlike name of Degen - meaning both 'warrior' and 'sword'. But, the fighter was more commonly referred to simply as a 'D9' (after their tail markings) or 'Wansti' ('Paunchy' after dickwanst), because of its underslung belly tank). [1]

Top 'Schwartz 4' - a Dewoitine (EKW) D.9 Degen of Jagdstaffel 4, LK2, Flugplatz Schaan, Liechtenstein, August 1935. As these fighters logged few flying hours, 'erks' had plenty of time to maintain those shiny surfaces. Originally the D.9s had coloured fins inherited from the Swiss. These were later over-painted with silver dope.

Within two years of entering AFL-LFB service, the 1930-vintage D.9s were showing their age. One Dewoitine was out of service after a ground-loop. The remaining three had dire serviceability issues. With funding approved by the Landstag, two D.9 upgrade programmes were considered - a limited Degen Erneuerung Tragflächen und Leitwerke (Wings and Tailplane Replacement) or a more complete Degen Nutzungsdauererweiterung Programm (Degen Life Extension Programme). The more extensive DNP prevailed ... but only for the three still-flying fighters. The damaged 'Schwartz 2' would be reduced to spares to support the other three D.9s.

The upgraded Liechtensteinische Dewoitines became hybrids of sorts. Although still recognizable as D.9s, EKW had incorporated some Dewoitine D.26 components into their rebuild. Externally, there was little to distinguish the rebuilt D.9s other than their new wheel-scrapers and variable-pitch metal propellers. As a concession to gathering war-clouds, the restored Dewoitines were painted in the same two-tone camouflage scheme being applied to Swiss fighters - olivgrün on all upper surfaces with grau below. The effect was dull ... but that was the whole point.

The DNP rebuild added years to the remaining Dewoitine airframes but no-one within the AFL-LFB believed that these aged parasols represented any kind of aerial deterrent to overflights of Liechtensteinische airspace by more powerful neighbours. The hunt was on for more potent fighters - of which more later - and more suitable roles for the rebuilt D.9s. An obvious use was a fighter-trainers. One possibility was for the D.9s to be sent to Thun in Switzerland as dedicated trainers. Alternatively, they could be kept at home ... ready to act as emergency fighters when needed. The later concept won out and the Dewoitines joined the U 12Ö Flamingo at Schulstaffel A (SchSt A). But training tiro fighter pilots was not to be the final fate of the 'Wansti'.

By early 1941, it was obvious that the D.9s performed no truly useful role at SchSt A. It was proposed that these armed fighters would do a far better job of the aerial protection of Liechtenstein's railways than the overworked U 12Ö biplane. Henceforth, the two remaining flightworthy Dewoitines - 0381 and 0383 - would take turns flying Eisenbahn-Transportschutz (ETr, or Railroad Protection) missions. [2] They would continue these patrol flights for the rest of their careers - 0381 until she crashed in February 1944, 0383 until May 1943 when the last surviving Liechtensteinische Dewoitine could finally be stood down.

Bottom An updated AFL-LFB Dewoitine 'Wansti', 0384 of JSt4, LK2 in mid-1943. This D.9 is finished in the special 'ETr-tarnung' scheme for flying railway patrols. Despite these ETr missions, the D.9s remained assigned to the training unit Schulstaffel A (SchSt A) at Schaan.

(To be continued ...)
____________________________________________________

[1] Although 'mascot' names were officially discouraged, one Dewoitine (Nr.0382) was briefly dubbed 'Dackel' ('Dachshund') leading to the erroneous conclusion that this was another unofficial name for ALF-LFB D.9s.

[2] Degen 0384 was written-off in a hard landing by a student pilot. EKW had shipped back all useful parts 'cannibalized' from 'Schwartz 2' but stocks were running low. As a result, it was decided that 0384 should be reduced-to-produce to replenish the D.9 spares supply.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 23, 2019, 03:58:31 PM
Your Dewoitine is such a natural for Liechtenstein I can only tip my cap to your imagination for thinking of it.

I especially like how you rendered the metal parts on the top one as well as that most-appropriate camo on the bottom one and your take on the almost-famous Liechtenstein rudder stripes sure beats my fiddling with tiny decal bits.

I'd apologize for distracting you, but the result is so magnificent I'm tempted to see how I can do it again...

Most excellent!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2019, 07:30:04 AM
Cheers Brian. And all but inevitable that you'll distract me again  ;D
_______________________________________________________________

Liechtenstein Gets Up-to-Date - The Coming of the Curtiss H75As

Although the Dewoitine 'Wansti' was extremely popular in Liechtenstein, no AFL-LFB pilot relished the thought of going to war in this antiquated parasol monoplane. By the Summer of 1939, the search was on for a more modern replacement fighter type. Unfortunately, every other small country in Europe now had exactly the same sense of urgency.

The situation changed for Liechtenstein after the fall of France. Immediate concerns of a Nazi invasion eased and discrete inquiries were made through German investors in the Liechtensteinische Landesbank (LLB) about the availability of combat aircraft. Through LLB agents, word arrived in Vaduz that German authorities were more than willing to trade captured French aircraft for hard currency. A deal was struck and six ex-Armée de l'Air Curtiss Hawk 75A fighters were delivered by rail through Switzerland. After another dip into the substantial stash of Swiss francs at the Liechtensteinische Landesbank, a further six Hawks were received from German stocks in France.

In the first batch were four Curtiss H75A-1 models (one of which was a write-off purchased for spares), an H75A-2, and a heavily-damaged H75A-3 (again, bought for spares). Two of the airworthy H75A-1s were left at the Swiss Flugwaffe's Thun base for assembly. Another H75A-1 and the H75A-2 were assembled for the ALF-LFB by contracted personnel at Flugplatz Schaan. The damaged H75A-1 was put into storage at Thun while the H75A-3 was immediately stripped for parts by ALF-LFB maintenance trainees.

High Calibre? - The AFL-LFB and Armaments Confusion in Liechtenstein

The standard machine gun round of the Armee des Fürstentums Liechtenstein was the Austrian Mannlicher 8 mm M93 cartridge. [1] However, the first machine guns in ALF-LFB service were Lewis guns firing the Swiss 7.5 mm Patron M11. As a result, the flying service needed Swiss cartridges while the rest of the Armee - including the 'Flabtruppen' providing airfield defence - required Austrian rounds. [2] Supply of different cartridges to different AFL Branches was a challenge which multiplied with the arrival of the Curtiss H75As. These new fighters carried FN-Browning Mle 38 guns firing yet another type of cartridge - French 7.5 mm Cartouche Mle 29 - which were of the same calibre as the Swiss 7.5 mm but otherwise completely different rounds.

Some consideration was given to converting the FN-Browning guns to fire the Swiss cartridge. This would ensure that ALF-LFB aircraft, at least, used the same round. Negotiations had begun on having this conversion job done by a nascent Liechtensteinische machine works - the oHG Hilti engineering firm - being set up across the field at Schaan. Funding problems thwarted this machine gun conversion work and the fledgling oHG Hilti had no experience with weapons technology. In the end - as we'll see later - the principals behind oHG Hilti would be forced to flee Liechtenstein. The Schaan works was taken over as an Armee des Fürstentums Liechtenstein machine shop ... but the AFL-LFB would be forced to juggle disparate ammunition supplies throughout the war years.

___________________________________

[1] A standard AFL infantry Swartzlose machine gun had been trial-fitted to the Hüffer H 9 biplane's rear cockpit but 'Rot 2' was never flown with this weapon mounted.

[2] The 8 mm Swartzlose machine gun remained the major weapon type of the Fliegerabwehrtruppen. The Flab Trp had received a handful of 2.0 cm Solothurn anti-aircraft guns in early 1939. However, attempts to obtain heavier anti-aircraft artillery for Liechtenstein failed completely.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2019, 07:31:21 AM
With a Little Help From our Friends - Getting Ready for the Curtiss Habicht

Re-dubbed Habichte (Goshawks), some of Liechtenstein's 'new' fighters came straight from French Bases de Stockage, others had been operational AdA H75As captured by the Germans. [1] Many in the latter category had suffered some degree of damage - from heavy use or in  battle. Those held in the Bases de Stockage were brand new airframes, usually awaiting some missing, French-made components ... but at least they were undamaged. The 'veterans' were mainly intact but almost all had been robbed of their reflector gun sights and several lacked radio-transmitters. As the ex-French Hawks were re-assembled at Flugplatz Schaan, some attempts at standardization were made.

Due to missing components and differing variants, full commonality was impossible to achieve. A major change was the removal of the 217 litre fuel tank from the H75As' rear fuselage. That resulted in a weight-savings of over 55 kg (around 600 lbs) in fuel alone and the fighter's balance was improved. Of course, range was correspondingly reduced to around 875 km - but a tiny country like Liechtenstein had no need for the H75A's original range of over 1,300 km. Other weight-savings were less desirable. In their ex-French packages, the ALF-LFB did not receive sufficient machine guns to completely arm their H75A fleet. Many of the fighters flew with reduced armament. Not ideal, but it did make the ALF-LFB Habichte rather sprightly compared with other Curtiss Hawks.

Two Habichte were stationed at the Swiss airbase at Thun for training. [2] Thun H75As were stripped of weapons other than a single synchronized FN-Browning gun for armaments training. [3] The Thun pair also received different seats. This was because the Swiss insisted upon the use of standard Flugwaffe seat parachutes. (By contrast, the ALF-LFB had elected to retain the original French Lemercier back parachutes). In late 1943, one of the Thun aircraft was damaged when its undercarriage refused to extend on landing. In that case, 0386 had its seat transferred to its replacement - Nr.3813. [4]

Bottom Curtiss H75A-1 Habicht (Nr. 0388) fighter-trainer in Swiss Flugwaffe markings at Flugplatz Thun in 1941. Marked 'J-88' after Swiss practice, [5] this Habicht was then unarmed (lacking even its ring-and-bead sights.

Top Out with the old: An EKW-built Dewoitine D.26 trainer on loan to Liechtenstein (note that the Flugwaffe individual aircraft number has been removed). The D.26 was gentle enough for tiro fighter pilots but also an ideal refresher for those Liechtensteinishe pilots with prior experience on the ALF-LFB's Dewoitine D.9 'Wansti'.

____________________________________

[1] Although publicised as the Habicht, foreign media sometimes translated their original 'Hawk 75' name. In fact, this spurious 'Falke 75' name was never used in official AFL-LFB documentation.

[2] In Swiss sources, the Habichte were included within the Flugwaffe's Fliegerkompanie 15. There were initial concerns that Liechtensteinische dialect heard over radio transmissions might give the game away. That became a moot point when the R/T sets were removed from the Thun aircraft to ensure supplies for the ALF-LFB's operational fighters.

[3] Initially, the Thun aircraft were unarmed. The later, reduced armament was partly to conserve available guns for operational use and partly to reduce demands on 'alien' ammunition at Thun.

[4] H75A-1 0386 was then repaired by EKW, fitted with 3813's machine guns, and resprayed in the new Bergsplittertarnung camouflage scheme before rejoining JSt4 at Flugplatz Ruggell.

[5] The two-numeral 'J-88' codes were distinct. This was likely to avoid any potential Swiss clerical confusion with the J-3xx serials of Flugwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 109E fighters.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 26, 2019, 05:11:36 PM
Ohhh a Swiss Curtiss Hawk 75! Be still my heart!  :-*

The natural metal finish is rendered most excellently and I never imagined how good this pursuit would look in those markings!

I rather enjoyed the nod to Liechtenstein too.

Well done, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 27, 2019, 03:11:58 AM
Oh that Swiss Curtiss Hawk 75 is sweet. :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on July 27, 2019, 04:13:39 AM
Beautiful renderings and a most intriguing and plausible story.  Bravo, sir!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 27, 2019, 07:26:51 AM
Cheers folks! Back to Liechtenstein proper ...

Habichte Jägern - Liechtenstein's Operational Curtiss H75As

Two airworthy Habichte immediately entered ALF-LFB service with  at Flugplatz Schaan, replacing a pair of surviving Dewoitine Degen fighters. [1] However, comparatively little flying was done. Only once the first cadre of fully-trained ALF-LFB fighter pilots arrived back from Switzerland did the pace of operations pick up. Meanwhile the second batch of six Hawks arrived at EKW in Thun for refurbishing. These airframes consisted of three H75A-1s (one with some battle damage), and one each of H75A-2, H75A-3, and H75A-4 (which was engineless). The damaged H75A-1 remained with EKW at Thun to act as a source of spares for the two H75A-1 fighter-trainers.

With the delivery of the second batch of refurbished Habichte from Thun, Jagdstaffel 2 could be brought up to full strength. More importantly, it allowed for dispersed basing. As the only airfield in the Pricipality, Flugplatz Schaan made an obvious target for any potential agressor. By the beginning of 1942, a satellite field had been created in the far north of Liechtenstein. Flugplatz Ruggell was an emergency, wartime facility which combined valley-bottom farmers' fields with the main road in the village of Ruggell. This was not ideal - the harvest was disrupted and local road traffic had to be halted when aircraft were taking-off or landing. However, it allowed the ALF-LFB to divide its operational fighter fleet now that Liechtenstein had two airfields.

The operational fleet was divided into two Flights of four aircraft each. Based at Schaan were: H75A-1s Nr. 0389 and 3812; H75A-2 Nr. 0385; and H75A-3 Nr. 3816. Detached to Ruggel were: H75A-1s Nr. 3810 and 3813 (later swapped for repaired former-Thun trainer, Nr. 0386), an H75A-1/H75A-4 hybrid, Nr. 3815; and H75A-2 Nr. 3814.

Top ALF-LFB Curtiss H75A-3 Habicht of JSt2/LK2 at Flugplatz Schaan. Nr. 3816 briefly wore an unauthorized personal emblem - an airborne haubenmeise (Crested Tit) - in the Summer of 1942. This 'Haubenmeise' decoration was quickly removed by official order.

For the first full year of operations, the AFL-LFB Habichte kept a fairly low profile - carefully avoiding border incursions into either Swiss or German airspace. That came to an end on 24 March 1942 - the anniversary of a failed 1939 Vaduz coup by VDBL Nazi sympathizers. [2] Trouble was first revealed when Flugoffizier Jürgen Hilti took off from Ruggell in Habicht Nr. 3814 without permission. As he crossed the German frontier, Hilti shouted a VDBL slogan "Liechtenstein den Liechtensteinern!" (Liechtenstein for the Liechtensteiners!) over his radio. Within moments, Hilti's H75A-2 was over his intended target - the German airfield at Hohenems-Dornbirn.

A younger brother of VDBL official Martin Hilti, the Habicht pilot intended to attack German military aircraft on the ground, thus prompting a Nazi take-over of Liechtenstein. Unfortunately for FO Hilti, Flugplatz Hohenems-Dornbirn never was a Luftwaffe base. Overflying Hohenems-Dornbirn field, Hilti found nothing but a handful of civilian gliders staked out. Lacking sufficient fuel to attack other targets, the frustrated young pilot turned back towards Liechtenstein. His intentions at that point are unclear but his aircraft crashed into the western slope of Drei Schwestern in Planken. The remains of the H75A and Flugoffizier Hilti were not found until later in the summer of 1942. [3]

Thereafter, allowing for lapses in serviceabilty, that Schaan/Ruggel Habichte mix remained fairly stable. In late 1943, the Ruggel detachment lost a pilot when Nr. 3812 crashed near Mauren after losing part of its tailplane in flight. In early 1944, the Schaan Flight lost Nr. 3815 - an H75A-1/H75A-4 hybrid airframe - which burnt out after a ground collision with a taxiing Fokker C.V-E. No aircrew casualties resulted from that ground incident but, unfortunately, a base firefighter was badly burned while extricating the Fokker's trapped gunner.

By the Summer of 1944, AFL-LFB Habichte serviceabilty started to drop quickly. Ironically, that was just as regular incursions into Liechtensteinische airspace began in earnest. Fuel and ammunition supplies were low and, generally, two or more operational Habichte were out of service in Thun for rebuilds. Those refurbishments were modest but the opportunity was taken to apply a new camouflage finish - the Bergsplittertarnung (Alpine Splinter Camouflage) scheme. Unfortunately, the otherwise effective Bergsplittertarnung camouflage was almost immediately compromised by official orders to apply bright, Swiss-style 'Neutrality Stripes' in a repeating pattern of Liechtensteinische national colours.

Bottom ALF-LFB Curtiss H75A-1 Habicht (Nr. 3810) of JSt2/LK2 (Flugplatz Ruggell detachment)  wearing the 1944 Bergsplittertarnung scheme with partial 'Neutrality Stripes' (not yet applied to the wing tips).

In early 1945, design work began on arming some of the Habichte with 2.0 cm Solothurn cannons - the so-called 'Kanonen-Curtiss Projekt'. Work began at the AFL's Schaan repair facility - the former oHG Hilti plant [4] - but progress was slow on the new under-wing mounts. By March 1945, the air war over southern Germany was intensifying. In a reverse of policy, the ALF-LFB cancelled further work on cannon-armed Habichte. It was concluded that, if anything, weight-reduction was required to keep the aging Habichte fleet in any way competitive with potential aerial interlopers.

____________________________________

[1] The first two operational aircraft were an H75A-2 (Nr. 0385) and an H75A-1 (Nr. 3810).

[2] In March 1939, members of the Volksdeutsche Bewegung in Liechtenstein (VDBL or German National Movement in Liechtenstein) had attempted a coup. Their aim was to prompt a German invasion with the hope of having Liechtenstein incorporated into the Third Reich. Unfortunately for the VDBL, their erstwhile masters in Berlin showed no interest. The VDBL failed to seize power but Vaduz avoided prosecuting the perpetrators until 1946 to avoid any Nazi repurcussions.

[3] FO Hilti's actions also had consequences for his older brothers. Martin and Eugen Hilti had just formed the engineering company oHG Hilti at Schaan. In the aftermath of his brother's fatal flight, Martin Hilti's fled across the border to Germany. After being briefly detained, older brother Eugen followed. Both men joined the Waffen SS.

[4] The elder Hilti brothers would never return to Liechtenstein. In early 1945, Eugen was killed in France during Unternehmen Nordwind. Martin was captured on the OstFront after being wounded in March 1945 (during Unternehmen Frühlingserwachen, the final German offensive in the East). Martin Hilti was last seen alive at a Siberian work Gulag for Waffen SS prisoners in the Spring of 1951.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 27, 2019, 08:35:06 AM
You've totally taken this to the next level! I especially like the splinter camo and recognition stripes on the bottom one.

That's a gripping good read to compliment the fine art too. "In the far north of Liechtenstein" is a magnificent turn of phrase not often heard and worth an adult beverage. Or two.

I was also delighted with the reference to Thun which, according to Michael Lonsdale in "Smiley's People" is noted for its excellent banking facilities.

Your Liechtenstein Hawks made my evening, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 30, 2019, 02:32:56 AM
Cheers Brian  :D
______________________________

At dusk on the evening of 16 April 1945, Flugplatz Ruggell received an unexpected visitor. As the light faded, a Messerschmitt fighter approached the airfield with its undercarriage down and landing lights on. Somewhat embarassingly for the 'Flabtruppen', the low-flying Luftwaffe aircraft wasn't even noticed until it was on final approach. After landing, the German pilot taxiied over to where the Habichte were parked, switched off, and immediately requested asylum in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

The alien aircraft - a Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2, seemingly employed by the Luftwaffe as a fighter-trainer - was quickly pushed into the cover of the barn used by the AFL-LFB for Habicht maintenance at Ruggell. That may have been unnecessary. Apparently, German authorities had no idea what had become of their fighter-trainer. It may have crashed somewhere in the Austrian Alps, it may have been shot down by the Allied fighters plaguing Austrian skies, or the pilot may have deserted and flown to Switzerland. An informal Luftwaffe query was sent to Switzerland but it never seems to have occurred to German officialdom that the Messerschmiirtt might have landed safely in Liechtenstein.

The identity and origin of the Bf 109G-2 pilot has never been revealed but he is believed to have been an instructor at a Luftwaffe training base in Austria. Likewise, no details were revealed for two further Luftwaffe pilots interned in Liechtenstein. These two landed a pair of Messerschmitt Bf 109G-6s at Flugplatz Schaan in quick succession on the morning of 02 May 1945. Again, the German fighters were quickly hidden and no German enquiries were ever made to Liechtensteinische authorities. By then, all was in chaos for the Germans and the collapse of the Third Reich imminent.

The 'gift' of these German fighters was well-timed for the AFL-LFB. The Habichte fleet was on its last legs and plans were quickly put into place to restore the Messerschmitts to take over the Flugplatz Ruggell detachment. This would free up the Habichte airframes in poorest condition for desperately-needed cannibalization. With the war in Europe at an end, work on the Messerschmitts could proceed more openly. Sources of spares proved tricky. The Swiss had supply problems for their own Messerschmitt fighters and could be of no assistance. [1] The ALF-LFB would have to look further afield.

Frustratingly, the ALF-LFB had no access to the vasts stocks of idle Bf 109s and their parts now scattered across the former wartime airfields of central Europe. As it happened, the region of Austria bordering Liechtenstein was to become the French-occupied zone. It was time for diplomatic manoeuvring. First it was acknowledged that the Fürstentum Liechtenstein was in possession of former French fighter aircraft. The Principality now offered to return those ex-Armée de l'Air Curtiss H75A fighters to their rightful owners. Vaduz was thanked for its offer but Paris saw no need for the Hawk fighters to be returned. The next missive from Vaduz enquired as to whether the French would be willing to sell surplus aircraft parts to Liechtenstein.

The French reply was that no Curtiss components were available in the Métropole - all H75As had been sent to North Africa early in WW2. [2] On the other hand, Paris was more than happy to supply ex-Luftwaffe aircraft and parts from the French-occupied zones of Germany or Austria. This resulted in the sale of two more Bf 109G-6 fighters, six Arado Ar 96B armed as attack aircraft, [3] two Fieseler Fi 156 observation aircraft, and stocks of spares for all three types. It had now been concluded that a pair of Habichte could be kept airworthy by sacrificing the rest of the fleet. [4] So, the post-war ALF-LFB fleet would consist of three Messerschmitts (with one held in reserve), two H75As, four Ar 96Bs (with two in reserve), and a pair of Storchs.

Top The ALF-LFB's sole Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2 in Liechtenstein's postwar markings. The Prince's crest - a patronage symbol for JSt4 - is worn on the cowling. Note that this fighter is missing its reflector DF loop.

Bottom Curtiss H75A-1 Habicht (3810) fighter-trainer of ALF-LFB Jäger-Schule. This aircraft wears postwar roundels but retains its wartime rudder stripes. Note that 3810 is missing its Baille-Lemairie gun sight (although ring-and-bead sights are mounted).

Under local political pressure, Flugplatz Ruggell was closed in October 1945. Flugplatz Schaan was going to become a busy place. From late 1945, basic pilot training was performed at private flying schools in Switzerland. The Habichte were struck off in early 1947 and the surviving four Ar 96Bs moved to an advanced training role. The attack role was transferred to the Messerschmitts of JSt2 but these fighters rarely had bomb racks mounted. By 1950, the combat fleet had dwindled to two airworthy Bf 109s - the 'G-2 and a 'G-6 - three Ar 96Bs, and two Fi 156s (one a replacement bought in Austria). After another fatal Ar 96B crash in March 1951, the Arados were phased out.

To remain effective, the ALF-LFB required a fleet-wide replacement programme. But, five years after the end of the European war, many in neutral Liechtenstein were questioning whether their nation really needed an air force. The tensions building along the Iron Curtain seemed a long distance away from little Liechtenstein. In September 1951, the Landtag put the question to a vote. With a three-quarter majority, it was decided to disband the ALF-LFB at the end of 1951. By November, all operational flying had ceased. All aircraft were disposed of for scrap except for the two Fieselers - these were refurbished in civil markings, operating as air ambulances until finally being replaced by SE 313 Alouette helicopters in the Summer of 1960.

____________________________________

[1] Now that the war in Europe was over, the Swiss were also anxious to end their agreement to train ALF-LFB pilots and erks.

[2] This explanation made sense but French reasons for refusing to export 7.5 mm Mle 38 machine guns was harder to fathom.

[3] The Arados filled the gap left when the last Fokker C.V-E had to be retired in late 1943.

[4] By this stage, the FN-Browning Mle 38 guns had been rebuilt to fire the same 7.92 mm rounds as the Bf 109G-2.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on July 30, 2019, 04:39:23 AM
Adding a 109 to Liechtenstein's air fleet is a natural and you sure made it look believable, apophenia!

I really like the new markings, especially the big tail stripes on the 109.

Pure eye-candy!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 31, 2019, 01:42:44 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 01, 2019, 07:33:11 AM
Thanks folks! A few more Liechtenstein types to follow ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 02, 2019, 06:56:21 AM
A few more Liechtensteinian birds, just 'cuz ...
________________________________________

While the ALF-LFB needed fresh fighter aircraft, of necessity, the attack role had gone into hiatus with the retirement of the Fokker C.V-Es in October 1943. That role would not be resumed until the arrival of French-supplied, ex-Luftwaffe Arado Ar 96s from Austria in early 1946. Such was the perceived urgency that, initially, Liechtenstein's Arados flew in their original Luftwaffe camouflage with the ALF-LFB's postwar insignia overmarked.

The ALF-LFB's Arados were a mixed bag. Four were armaments trainers with a single, synchronized 7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun in their cowlings. [1] Two were early, unarmed Ar 96B-1 models. In ALF-LFB service, the armaments trainers were eventually fitted with wing racks for light bombs. The two Ar 96B-1s were fitted with Revi gun sights and armed with underwing 2.0 cm MG 151/20 cannon pods taken from the Bf 109G-6s. It was intended that the Arados would work in pairs - one cannon-armed, one bomb carrier.

Top An ALF-LFB Arado Ar 96B-5 in its original Luftwaffe scheme with Liechtenstein's postwar national markings painted over top (full rudder paint being dictated by the position of the wartime swastika). Note that machine (Nr.4630) has not yet had its individual aircraft number applied.

Bottom An ALF-LFB Ar 96B-1 (Nr.4634) repainted in the postwar Bergsplittertarnung scheme. This scheme was unique to the Arados as were the 'lo-viz' national markings applied in matt paint.

In April 1947, the  remaining four Ar 96Bs were moved into the training role. [2] As these aircraft were rotated through scheduled heavy maintenance, they were stripped and repainted in overall silver like the rest of the ALF-LFB fleet. In March 1951, Ar 96B-1 Nr.4631 crashed while attempting to put down engine-out on a Alpine just north of Vaduz. After this fatal crash, the Arados were phased out of ALF-LFB service.

____________________________________

[1] The armed Arados comprised one Ago-built Ar 96B-2 and three Ar 96B-5 (two Letov-built and one Avia-built aircraft).

[2] The survivors were one Ar 96B-1 (Nr.4631), an Ar 96B-2 (Nr.4632), and two Ar 96B-5 (Nr.4633 and 4635). Ar 96B-1 Nr.4630 had been quickly written-off and broken up for parts. Ar 96B-5 Nr.4634 was lost in a landing accident at Schaan in January 1947.
____________________________________

BTW, these were based on an excellent French Ar 96B profile by Olivier Beernaert. I revised a few items for accuracy - prop hub, cowling outline, some access hatches, etc. - and then Liechtensteinified 'em.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 02, 2019, 08:53:39 AM
The Arado 96 is a natural in Liechtenstein colors, apophenia!

Looks a treat in those colorful markings!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 04, 2019, 07:27:47 AM
Reggiane Resurgent? - The Delta-Powered Re.2010

This one was prompted by reading about Reggiane. Apparently, in 1943, work was underway on 300 or so Re.2005 fighters when Allied bombing put a stop to it. The though emerged: Were there many surviving Re.2005 components? If yes, what were the postwar possibilities?

So, I'm whiffing what the Officine Meccaniche Italiane "Reggiane" might have come up with for late '40s Re.2005 developments. The possibilities are near endless, of course. So, I've contained things by assuming that OMI Reggiane followed Giuseppe Gabrielli's example with the Fiat G.55 lineage over in Torino.

First up are the Re.2010 trainers. The Re.2010A was simply an Re.2005 airframe powered by an inverted V-12 Isotta-Fraschini Delta RC.40-I engine - the AMI's preferred engine for trainers at the time. Like the Fiat G.48A, the Re.2010A was intended as an advanced fighter-trainer with potential application - particularly for export - as a light fighter. A single prototype Re.2010A/0 was completed and test-flown but, by then, the AMI had already selected the G.48A.

In production form - beyond the engine change - it was intended that the Re.2010 airframe would differ from a wartime Re.2005 primarily in a re-arrangement of internal equipment, having a fixed tailwheel (from the Re.2001), and the elimination of the outer main wheel covers. These changes were intended primarily to reduce the maintenance load on AMI ground crews. A range of armament options were also on offer (see below).

Like the Re.2010A, the two-seat Re.2010B (sometimes referred to as the Reggiane Re.2012) trailled behind its Fiat rival. However, the more extensive conversion work required delayed the two-seater even more than the Re.2010A. As a result, the AMI chose the 2-seat Fiat G.48B. The Re.2010B/0 prototype conversion wasn't finished and the type never submitted for military trials at Guidonia. With no real interest from potential export customers, the unfinished Re.2010B/0 was broken up to provide spares to maintain the company's single-seat Re.2010A/0 demonstrator.

The planned Re.2010 lineage is listed below:

Re.2010 - Single-seat light fighter or 2-seat advanced trainer
 - Re.2010A/0: Prototype, Isotta-Fraschini Delta RC.40-I
 -- 2 x synchronized 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs, 2 x wing-mounted MG 151/20 cannons
 - Re.2010A/1: (Project) Production type, armed as prototype
 - Re.2010A/2: (Project) Production type, 4 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs
 - Re.2010A/3: (Project) 2 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs, wing bomb racks
 - Re.2010B - 2-seat tandem advanced training aircraft
 - Re.2010B/0: (Project) Prototype, I-F Delta RC.40-I, unarmed
 - Re.2010B/1: (Project) Production type, unarmed
 - Re.2010B/2: (Project) Production type, 1 or 2 x 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs

Further unrealized developments were to be:

Re.2011 - Single-seat fighter-trainer, Isotta-Fraschini Gamma

Re.2012 - 2-seat production trainer, Isotta-Fraschini IV-12 engine
 - Re.2012A: Similar to Re.2010, Isotta-Fraschini Gamma
 - Re.2012B: Same as Re.2010B/1, Isotta-Fraschini Delta
 - Re.2012C: Same as Re.2010B/2, Isotta-Fraschini Delta

Re.2013 - (Designation not applied)

Re.2014 - Export 2-seat trainer, Alvis Leonides 502/4 radial
 - Re.2014: Originally designated Re.2012L

Re.2015 - Export 2-seat trainer, Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Junior
 - Re.2014: Originally designated Re.2012P

Re.2016 - 2-seat advanced trainer, R-R or Packard Merlin
 - Re.2016: Redesignated Re.2022
________________________________________________________________

BTW: These sideviews began life as an Re.2005 profile by Angelo Brioschi.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 04, 2019, 07:59:43 AM
That's an excellent concept and trainers are certainly ripe territory for The Treatment, apophenia!

One again, your artistic rendering is without peer.

You've taken that famous Italian design sense and cranked it up a notch.

Bravo!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 05, 2019, 02:20:26 AM
Interesting developments.  The Isotta-Fraschini Delta RC.40 had about half the power of the Fiat R.A. 1050 RC 58 Tifone, (license built DB 605A-1) in the real world Re.2005 @ ~750hp vs 1,455 hp but that would be less of an issue in a trainer.  Removing things such as the outer main wheel covers would help with weight reduction and thus performance too.  One of the interesting things also with the Isotta-Fraschini Delta was that it was an air-cooled inverted V-12 thus also reducing the weight through liquid coolant and radiators etc.

What might also be interesting is if either the Isotta Fraschini Zeta or better yet, the Sigma X-24 engines were also developed further and used.  See here (https://oldmachinepress.com/2017/06/05/isotta-fraschini-zeta-x-24-aircraft-engine/) for some details.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 05, 2019, 09:29:27 AM
So, will we be seeing a Reggiane equivalent of the Fiat G.59?   I quite enjoy your evolution so far.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 07, 2019, 04:27:01 AM
Thanks folks.

Greg: I love William Pearce stuff! I used the Zeta on one of my Macchi variants. But the Delta was definitely the AMI's darling ... maybe they just had a lot of them stockpiled from wartime production? Dunno.

So, will we be seeing a Reggiane equivalent of the Fiat G.59?   I quite enjoy your evolution so far.

 ;)

Reggiane Resurgent? - The Re.2005 Nuevo

The Officine Meccaniche Italiane "Reggiane" also tried to resurrect the Re.2005 itself. Initially, the concept - the Reggiane Re.2005N (Nuevo) differed little from the wartime fighter. The Re.2005N faltered due to inadequate AMI stocks of Fiat RA.1050 Tifone inverted V-12 engines. As with Fiat's G.59, a redesign was undertaken to accomodate a Merlin engine - then in AMI service with both Spitfire and P-51 Mustang fighters. This aircraft was re-designated Reggiane Re.2020.

Merlin Reggiane - the Re.2020

The prototype Re.2020A/0 was fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 (taken from a Spitfire F.Mk.IX) driving a 4-bladed Rotol propeller. It was intended that the production fighter would be powered by a Packard Merlin T.24-2 driving an Aeroproducts propeller. An alternative powerplant was a Rolls-Royce Merlin 500-20 driving a 4-bladed Rotol propeller. Later, when surplus USAAF Packard V-1650-7s became available in Europe, that Merlin - driving a Hamilton-Standard prop - became a third engine option.

With the adoption of the Merlin, all fixed armament had to be wing-mounted. Armament options are listed with the proposed Re.2020 lineage (below):

Re.2020 - Single-seat fighter or advanced fighter-trainer
 - Re.2020A/0: Prototype, 1 x Rolls-Royce Merlin 66 V-12
 -- 2 x synchronized 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs, 2 x wing-mounted MG 151/20 cannons
 - Re.2020A/1: (Project) Merlin T.24-2, 4 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs
 - Re.2020A/2: (Project) Fighter-trainer, 2 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT mgs
 - Re.2020A/3: (Project) 4 x 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannons
 - Re.2020A/4: (Project) Export, 4 x 12.7 mm Browning machine guns
 - Re.2020A/5: (Project) Export, 4 x 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannons
________________________________________________________________

BTW: The original idea for these Reggiane developments was for the Out-of-Africa GB but they got replaced by something more plausible. As with the Re.2010s, these sideviews sprang off from an Angelo Brioschi Re.2005 profile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 07, 2019, 05:36:07 AM
Very nice!!  Shifting to a more Mustang-style radiator installation?  This promises to be an interesting set of developments and 'twill be interesting to see what models get exported and to what countries.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on August 07, 2019, 06:17:32 AM
It would be interesting to see what that would look like with a raised cockpit, say about a foot higher ---  ;)
Title: Reggiane 2001 Delta - The Real Bird & Italian Wings/Sword Conversion Model
Post by: Inactive on August 07, 2019, 09:21:22 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8qjXT45/untitled2.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/TwHqyVJt/untitled.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/W4Lyzv1d/Reggiane-2001-Delta-Engine-Upper-Left-Front.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/qRQD16XK/Reggiane-2001-Delta-Engine-Upper-Front-Right.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sf60SS2d/Reggiane-2001-Delta-Engine-Lower-Front-Right.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/qMWbDTn1/Reggiane-2001-Delta-Engine-Lower-Left-Front.jpg)

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 08, 2019, 02:33:01 AM
What about a RR Griffon-engined variant?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 08, 2019, 05:30:18 AM
([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=351.0;attach=24570;image[/url])


Very nice!!  Shifting to a more Mustang-style radiator installation? 
<snip>


It's like if you asked Sergio Leone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Leone) to make you a Mustang!

Wonderfully imaginative, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 09, 2019, 05:18:59 AM
Thanks folks!

Retired In Kalifornia - Excellent rendition of the Re.2001 Delta  :smiley:

What about a RR Griffon-engined variant?


Thought about that but then got distracted by the Out of Africa GB:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8683.msg158222#msg158222 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8683.msg158222#msg158222)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on August 12, 2019, 07:33:34 PM
Beautiful Merlin Reggianne!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 13, 2019, 02:57:57 AM
Cheers!  For Merlin and Griffon Fiats, see here:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8683.msg158283#msg158283 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8683.msg158283#msg158283)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2019, 04:45:18 AM
This is an unbuilt project turned whif. The Bell Model 11 was a pursuit/interceptor concept of circa 1938-39. It seems to have been an unrequested submission to the USAAC but I'm not sure whether it was meant to answer a particular specification or not.

The Bell Model 4 Airacobra had been ordered as the XP-39 in October 1937 and a prototype was due to fly in April 1939. However, no series had been issued in late 1938 and perhaps Bell was getting nervous. Bell's object in designing the Model 11 must have been to offer a simpler, lighter alternative to the P-39. Overall, the Model 11 gives the feel of an American Bf 109 analogue.

The top view is based on Bell Aircraft's 3-view general arrangment Drawing 111/1001 of 06 July 1939. On the copy I have, the specs are hard to read but seem to say 1,040 hp (but probably 1,050 hp) Allison V-1710 V-12; weight 4,352 lbs (empty), 5,585 lbs (gross); length 26' ?"; wing span 30' 0"; wing area 160.5 sq ft; Section NACA 21-C3 (root), NACA 27-104 (tip). No details are shown for a retracted undercarriage ... so I guessed (based on the odd leg placement and a 'swollen' inner wing profile). There's no real indication of intakes for carb or cooling (I'm guessing P-39-style rads  buried in the wings, oil coolers may be in lower cowling, but carburettor ...?).

The bottom view is a Bell P-45B - my whif of what the Bell Model 11 might have looked like in service. Some changes have been incorporated from the XP-45 above. First, stability was enhanced by increasing wing diherdral [1] and balance improved by moving some of the consumable fuel into the wing. That was possible by relocating the coolant rads into a belly fairing (based upon that of the Curtiss XP-46). Armament has been increased to four .50-calibre Brownings - two synchronized and two in the outer wings. [2] A P-40-style carburettor intake has been added between the cowl guns for the V-1710-33.

I also modified the cockpit canopy in shape and to a sliding type. Partly this was to increase the opening size, incorporate a glass-armour windscreen, and to just look slightly more like an Airacobra ;)  Too late, I realized I'd created problems with the markings. Anyone care to guess what they are?
__________________________________________

[1] I've also rounded the tips Airacobra-style in place of the original Model 11's tips which were 'clipped' on an angle.

[2] I'm assuming that the original Model 11 would have had the usual pre-WW2 USAAC pursuit armament of one .30-cal and one .50.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on August 20, 2019, 06:58:07 AM
Beautiful!!  I can't help but wonder if the original concept drawing had the carburetor airflow coming from a NACA-scoop on the top cowling; it would work but it wouldn't necessarily be as efficient as needed.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 20, 2019, 09:41:05 AM
Anyone care to guess what they are?

From a point of pure ignorance, I'm going to guess that you had to move the markings below the rear cockpit glazing back & up to get them off of the canopy rails.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 20, 2019, 04:55:20 PM
Anyone care to guess what they are?

From a point of pure ignorance, I'm going to guess that you had to move the markings below the rear cockpit glazing back & up to get them off of the canopy rails.

That'd be my guess too after confirming the number of rudder stripes (13) are correct. That's the most typical inter-war USAAC markings "miss".

What a beauty and it's not hard to imagine this on the flight-line! Well done apophenia! You always seem to top yourself with each new creation!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 21, 2019, 12:58:29 PM
Diameter of the circle, thus the size of the star.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on August 21, 2019, 06:28:19 PM
I have stumbled on to your stuff from time to time and never, until now, got a chance to say how much I admire it.

"Wingless Wonders" (Part 1)

Sensibly, Small Brown Dog doesn't sweat the technical details too much. I don't quite understand those details which are provided, so I've just made up my own ...


I will explain more in a new topic

PS, I screwed up the quote thing  - oops :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 21, 2019, 11:27:05 PM
It's cool, SBD, the "quote" thing can be a touch tricky on this site. For some reason it won't let me add a quote once I'm in the reply box but it will allow me to start a reply by clicking quote.

It's all too techmamologimacle for me! :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on August 21, 2019, 11:32:44 PM
It's cool, SBD, the "quote" thing can be a touch tricky on this site. For some reason it won't let me add a quote once I'm in the reply box but it will allow me to start a reply by clicking quote.

It's all too techmamologimacle for me! :-\

hang on.... I think I got it - yeehaaaa
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 22, 2019, 02:54:38 AM
Cheers folks!

Evan: I like your NACA scoop intake idea. It may not have been as efficient, but it sure would've looked cool  :smiley:

Markings: I must admit that I didn't give too much thought to the exact placement of the fuselage roundel ... or a specified diameter. (I really must dig out my copies of Dana Bell's Air Force Colors books!)

I based my P-45B at Rekyavik sometime after the US took over the defence of Iceland in mid-1941. But the red 'dot' wasn't ordered removed from USAAF roundels until 28 May 1942  :P  I suspect that fuselage roundels may not have been worn at that time in any case ... fortunately, its a whif :)

SBD: Welcome aboard Small Brown Dog! I've admired your work too. And by 'admired', of course, I mean that I've stolen your concepts shamelessly  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on August 22, 2019, 03:28:57 AM
SBD: Welcome aboard Small Brown Dog! I've admired your work too. And by 'admired', of course, I mean that I've stolen your concepts shamelessly  :-[

I saw my name come up in a search actually because I was looking for some git on Flickr or something that has stolen a pic and renamed it but in so doing I found this place. I have no problem with "borrowing" as A: you give credit and  B: your skills and imagination are several light years ahead of needing to steal stuff. However, having gone off on your own story line re the tech I figured I best sort that out :)
I was building a website for all this but to be honest I can't be bothered because I have had a gut full of web development in the past. Besides, this seems like the ideal place to put the content ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 24, 2019, 05:38:12 AM
... I was building a website for all this but to be honest I can't be bothered because I have had a gut full of web development in the past. Besides, this seems like the ideal place to put the content ;)

It is indeed. And no need for SEO, we on the lunatic fringe are already here  ;D
_____________________

With this next one, I spun off on the idea of the Bell Model 11 being inspired by the Bf 109. That involved a  Messerschmitt-style main undercarriage (instead of Bell's odd-to-me landing gear approach). And, of course, nothings says Messerschmitt like an inverted V-12. So, in went the Continental IV-1430 'Hyper' powerplant.

The XP-45 Hypercobra' prototype shows a standard Continental IV-1430 engine with no armament fitted. Compared with my first go at a Model 11, this one has a more P-51A-style belly radiator. As shown, an updraught carburettor is fed by a chin intake flanked by twin oil coolers. Planned armament for the production P-45A was a 25 mm motor-cannon and twin synchronized .50-calibre machine guns. However, insoluable feed problems led to the abandonment of that cannon.

The production P-45B was armed with only the two machine guns. Although it's not tremendously obvious, the rear fuselage has also been extended - mainly to better balance that long nose. This fighter is having temporary, water-based paint 'Red Force' markings applied for the November 1941 Carolina Maneuvers. The red spinner tip is a squadron colour (for the 35th Pursuit Squadron) as is the fuselage Command Band indicating that this is the 'A' Flight Leader's aircraft.

Permanent national markings are as per Air Corps Board Specification 24114 of October 1940 - with less glossy roundels on the fuselage side, underside of port wing, and upper side of starboard wing. Tail stripes have been omitted. 'US Army' is painted on the wings' underside with Insignia Blue paint and Individual Aircraft Number ('4') and squadron designator ('31P') painted on the fins (albeit, in lo-viz black rather than the specified yellow).

Cannon armament would not appear until the P-45C model. There, the main armament was a 20 mm Browning M12 - a reinforced M2 gun firing 20 mm Oerlikon shells from necked .50-calibre cartridges.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 24, 2019, 08:11:51 AM
It's a great treat to see another chapter in this wonderful concept, apophenia!

I really like your alternate USAAC markings which I could see being used for war games (I think what passed for OpFor used red crosses IRL).

Don't be too surprised if you don't see me do a take on this in styrene some day.

Excellent art work and you've got me looking forward to chapter three!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on August 24, 2019, 05:04:06 PM

It is indeed. And no need for SEO, we on the lunatic fringe are already here  ;D

We must all do our utmost to stay away from being normal  ;)

Re the XP45.
I like this, it has a certain sleek horniness that appeals greatly.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 25, 2019, 02:19:09 AM
I'm kind of surprised you didn't go for a 37 mm M4 cannon ala P-39.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 25, 2019, 07:10:22 AM
Cheers folks! And Brian, I'd love to see any of the Model 11s (mine or those old-timey guys from Buffalo) rendered in styrene!

Greg: My first thought was the M4 too. But the Model 11 is quite a bit smaller that the Airacobra. To make the 37 mm gun work, the canopy had to be move quite far back. A rough version look okay but a bit too D.520 for my taste.
_________________________________

The Hype Around 'Hyper' Engines

It was fairly obvious early on that the Continental IV-1430 - and the 'Hyper' engine programme generally - was never going to match planners' expectations. The only realistic engine alternative was the bigger V-1710-37 from Allison. Unfortunately, this upright V-12 could not accommodate a motor gun. Armament was going to be a challenge.

The engine change dictated other changes compared with the P-45C and Bell took advantage of shared British intelligence on an early Messerschmitt Bf 109F-1 model shot down over the UK. Since the Allison engine would require a new coolant system, Of most interest was Messerschmitt's refined, wing-mounted radiators. These were copied and applied experimentally to a P-45B airframe. With the aerodynamic success of the wing radiator installation proven, these were adopted for the P-45G - the first Allison-powered model. With the original, underslung radiator housing removed, the P-45G could now carry a belly rack for bombs or an external fuel tank.

Armament for the P-45G consisted of four Browning M2 machine guns, all synchronized to fire through the propeller disc. Compared with the prototype XP-45G - a P-45B conversion - the production fighter suffered from weight increase due to added operational equipment. This was addressed with the P-45H which reduced armament to only two guns and had some equipment minaturized to save weight. It was not clear what the P-45H's role would be within USAAF strategy but it was decided to employ these somewhat unwanted fighters to replace Seversky P-35s in the Phillipines.

When war came, it turned out that the lightweight P-45Hs could better 'mix it' with Japanese fighters than could the offical favorite - the Curtiss P-40. As a result, Bell was asked to proceed with its planned improvement. These included yet another fuselage stretch - this one accommplished by simply shifting the rudder post aft. A more noticeable change addressed long-standing USAAF complaints about the claustrophobic hinged cockpit canopy. This was replaced by a new, slightly higher, sliding canopy matched with a more generous rear glazing.

With the appearance of the Allison V-1710-39 with a higher thrust line, Bell proposed that the twin gun armament be shifted to a low position on the cowling. The USAAF studied the concept as the P-45K but this proposal was not accepted. Bell Aircraft turned its attention to other projects and, ultimately, built large numbers of the successful P-51 Mustang under license to North American.


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on August 25, 2019, 09:19:37 PM
Those are some exceptional incarnations on the theme and bring to mind a far sleeker, more streamlined A-36 Apache. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36_Apache)

(https://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2012/8/23/232663.jpg)

Your work is always a delightful feast for the eyes, apophenia!

You've already got me looking forward to the next installment.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 26, 2019, 06:38:25 AM
Quote
Unfortunately, this upright V-12 could not accommodate a motor gun. Armament was going to be a challenge.

Actually one could have been incorporated in the same way as the Hispano-Suiza 12Y, in the valley
between the cylinder heads.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Hs12_Ydrs.jpg)
12Y

(https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Allison9-379x550.jpg)
V-1710
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 27, 2019, 05:07:36 AM
Cheers Brian  :smiley:

Jon: There certainly seems to be plenty of room for a cannon barrel between the cylinder banks:
https://www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/allison-v-1710-2-648x486.jpg (https://www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/allison-v-1710-2-648x486.jpg)

I'm guessing that a cannon installation would work best with the V-1710-39's raised thrust line. Obviously, an updraught carburretor would also be needed to clear space for the big gun's breech.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 28, 2019, 05:13:04 AM
Cheers Brian  :smiley:

Jon: There certainly seems to be plenty of room for a cannon barrel between the cylinder banks:
[url]https://www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/allison-v-1710-2-648x486.jpg[/url] ([url]https://www.darwinaviationmuseum.com.au/wp-content/uploads/allison-v-1710-2-648x486.jpg[/url])

I'm guessing that a cannon installation would work best with the V-1710-39's raised thrust line. Obviously, an updraught carburretor would also be needed to clear space for the big gun's breech.


Yep, the later type offset reduction gear would be required, putting a cannon through
the long-nose C engine with the inline planetary gear reduction gear assembly would
require a hollow crankshaft. Which’d be kinda cool as you’d get a longer barrel and
the potential for a higher muzzle velocity cannon. Of course you also end up having
to relocate the supercharger, possibly to the side as on the DB and Jumo inverted
engines, or maybe lowered or raised. Probably lowered to keep a more compact profile
and not have to muck directly with the camshaft drive, the accessories being easier to
relocate.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Allison_v_1710_vee_12_engine_at_Smithsonian_museum.jpg)

(http://www.weakforcepress.com/CDs/Allison%20V-1710/V-1710%20OH023.jpg)

edit: these are the images that should have been shown, rather than the Miller 91, dunno how I managed to do that  :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on August 29, 2019, 12:32:20 AM
BTW, the Armstrong-Whitworth backstory was predicated upon licencing PZL designs to make use of AW's metal construction experience. Here's the operational outcomes (for P.11/24 and a P.23 evolution).

I like this a lot.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 30, 2019, 07:23:09 AM
Cheers SBD! I always have fun playing with PZLs  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on September 19, 2019, 09:55:19 AM
Thanks folks!

As mentioned, the VVJK decided to allocate all available 'war-booty' Klimov M-105 engines to fighter programs. Engines lacking gun synchonization went to Zmaj to re-engine Hawker Hurricanes with worn-out Merlins. The result was the 'Hariken-S'.

[Bottom] A newly refurbished 'Hariken-S' of 35. Grupa, 5. Lovacki Puk/3. Brigada, Leskovac (prior to dispatch to Thessaloniki, Greece). Note that White 7's markings are only partially applied - white paint has yet to be added to the fuselage roundel and the fighter's new, Luftwaffe-style individual aircraft number.

Synchronized Klimovs went to Rogožarski for IK-3/II re-engining and new-production IK-3/III Jastreb (Hawk) fighters. The later was readily distinguishable from early IK-3s by the upper cowling bulges for its synchronized 12,7 mm Breda-SAFAT guns (a third Breda fired through the hollow propeller shaft).

[Top] An IK-3/III Jastreb of 32. Grupa, 2. Lovacki Puk/1. Brigada at Krusevac. Fuselage mottling on 'Red 4' is more extensive than normal (with grey mottling extending into the recognition panels and even forms a 'Spiralschnauze' on the spinner!).

______________________
With the number of IK-3 kits I now have, these definitely tempt me as subjects.  One thought, the IK-3 (and for that matter, the B.135) shares a basic engine with the Dewoitine D.520.  I can't help but wonder if the exhausts from that aircraft would improve the IK-3 (or, again, the B.135).  It's a tempting easy whiff to try.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 20, 2019, 07:04:38 AM
Thanks Evan, glad you liked 'em. Good idea on your Dewoitine concept  :smiley:  Quickboost does aftermarket D-520 exhausts in 1:72nd and 1:48th.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on September 20, 2019, 07:15:44 AM
Thanks Evan, glad you liked 'em. Good idea on your Dewoitine concept  :smiley:  Quickboost does aftermarket D-520 exhausts in 1:72nd and 1:48th.
*chuckle* I know and I'll be buying some to whiff both the B.135 and IK-3, probably in Bulgarian markings since they flew both the D.520 and B.135 (might also see a three-bladed constant speed propeller added to the B.135); if the production facilities were not destroyed, I could see Bulgaria flying IK-3s, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 22, 2019, 04:27:20 AM
Evan: Cool stuff! I love the idea of Bulgaria flying IK-3s (perhaps as replacements for remaining PZL P.24s?).

For the three-bladed constant speed props on those B.135s, maybe Bulgaria sourced some hélice Chauvière 3981 from Vichy as spares for the D.520s? (The original IK-3s had HS props - licensed Hamilton Standards ... Modèle 2010? ... perhaps standardize across the Bulgarian fleet on the Chauvière?)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 26, 2019, 11:08:58 AM
Cars aren't common on BtS, I know, but I got bit by one those notions that won't leave ...

Construzione Automobili Intermeccanica became known for shoe-horning US V8 running gears into Italian sportscar bodies of original design. Intermeccanica's main problem was finding reliable American partners - including engine suppliers (from Ford selling them seized engines so GM cutting of their supply to protect the Corvette.

When the Italian economy, the owners' of Intermeccanica left Turin for California. There, Frank Reisner started building Porsche 356 replicas out of the family's suburban garage. The Intermeccanica Speedster has a great reputation but, the Porsche replica - compared with earlier designs like the Intermeccanica Apollo, Italia, and Indra - doesn't quite do it for me.

That got me musing on what other options might have been available to the Reisers. I always thought that the Datsun 240Z was a nice car ruined by bodywork that seemed to start rusting on ship coming from Yokohama. So, that means that running gear parts would have been plentiful as rust-bucket 240Zs started to hit the knacker's yards. And I noticed that the size of 240Z and Intermeccanica Italia weren't hugely different:

Measurement   Datsun 240Z   Italia
Wheelbase   2.30 m/90.7 in   2.40 m/94 in
Body Length   4,14 m/163 in   4.38 m/173 in
Body Width   1.62 m/64 in   1.73 m/68 in
Body Height   1,28 m/50.5 in   1.18 m/46 in

So, the wheelbase difference is only 3 inches. To make a Datsun-based Italia, the Italian body design needs to be shortened 10 inches and narrowed 4 inches. (Not too tricky -  I am envisoning Reisner's usual welded-tube chassis and a fibreglass body à la the Speedster.) Assuming that the 240Z windscreen was re-used, the 'Datsun Italia' would also be taller (and less raked in appearance).

Anyway, here's a retouch to show the imagined results. The 'Datsun Italia' is the top view, the original Intermeccanica V8 Italia is on the bottom
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 26, 2019, 02:35:34 PM
I prefer the look of the original but they both look great! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 27, 2019, 03:35:04 AM
Cheers Old Wombat. I prefer the original Italia too. The trouble was that US regulations had changed to thwart low-rate automobile production. For small outfits like Intermeccanica, kit cars were the way to go. Reisner chose VW as his donor car, I was thinking that Datsun's rust problems presented an opportunity.

That said, until I did the retouch, I hadn't realized just how upright the 240Z windscreen was. That strongly rake windscreen was one of the features that gave the Italia its look. Oh well  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 07, 2019, 11:56:34 AM
In July 1939, the UK Air Ministry purchased the sole Martin-Baker MB.2 prototype on behalf of the Australian government. The aircraft was then shipped to Port Melbourne as an engineless airframe. With the assistance of the Aeronautical Research Laboratory, a newly-formed Martin-Baker Aircraft (Australia) Pty. began work on converting the design to suit an RAAF requirement for a modern fighter.

Major modifications involved the substitution of a Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial engine, the installation of a retractable main undercarriage (brought directly from Curtiss-Wright as was the MBA electric propeller), and the moving forward of the cockpit.

Bottom The partly re-assembled MB.2 prototype with R-1830 S3C4-G engine and Curtiss Electric airscrew installed. Curtiss retractable main gear is also shown as is original tail wheel. Less obvious is the enlarged tail fin and rudder (which was unlikely to have been approved of by designer, James Martin)

Other than the removal of its British serial (P9594) and application of an Australian serial (A38-1), the MB.2's paint scheme is unchanged.

Top The revised 'MBA.2' shown in completed form. Note the primered cowling with revised exhaust stubs and newly-enlarged (and still unpainted) carburettor intake. Not visible is the removal of the gun synchronizing gear.

The electric propeller has now been replaced with a Hamilton Standard hydraulic prop (supplied by de Havilland Australia) fitted with a hub. A replacement tail wheel (taken from a CAC Wirraway) has been installed, made necessary when the original was damaged in a ground handling incident. A radio antenna has also been added.

The MBA.2 flew rather poorly and proceeded no further. Instead, the RAAF contract for a new fighter went to de Havilland Australia for its ADH-1 Dondorn (Brown Falcon).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 08, 2019, 04:22:44 AM
Oh yes that looks every bit the business and that shade of green is most pleasing!

You have a very talented eye for colors, aphophenia!

Always a treat to see an update from you.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 08, 2019, 08:53:15 AM
Great job, apophenia! :smiley: 8)


Mind you, I find those triangular tails on Martin-Baker & Boulton-Paul aircraft to be particularly ugly.

If I was an aircraft designer/engineer, they'd be the first things to go! ::)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on October 08, 2019, 09:26:30 PM
Nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 08, 2019, 10:11:52 PM
Nice Stephen  :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Now I've got a visual for my Centaurus powered MB5
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2019, 04:02:57 AM
Thanks folks!

Now I've got a visual for my Centaurus powered MB5

Ooo, looking forward to that. I'd wondered about alternative-engine MB.3s but using the MB.5 gets around the ground visibility issues  :smiley:

OW: I know what you mean about Martin's fins and rudders. The upside of a straight-edged empennage (triangular or otherwise) is ease of production. For example, see the Wirraway-to-Harvard evolution. The NA-16 has a fully-curved rudder (as per Wirraway); the NA-36 (BC-1) and NA-49 (Harvard Mk.I had slightly-curved rudders; the NA-64 Yale and later Harvards/AT-6s all had straight-edged, triangular rudders.

Speaking of North American and straight-edged rudders, my next post requires some preliminary background arm-waving ...

The RW Background Bit

North American Aviation developed several single-seat fighter concepts in the late 1930s. A straightforward, short-winged NA-16 derivative project matured as the NA-50 export fighter. This modest little fighter was quickly rejected by potential European combatants. What followed was a much more advanced 'idealized 1938 pursuit' conceived by Chief Designer Edgar Schmued (leading to the P.509). This design followed the latest European trends of multi-gunned fighters powered by liquid-cooled V-12 engines. In this case, that engine was a US Allison V-1710. The most advanced feature was the integration of a NACA laminar-flow aerofoil for the wings.

Another 1938 project was for a more economical export fighter, the NA-53. This unbuilt project was a 'Super NA-50' powered by a Pratt & Whitney R-1830-S3C-G radial and using a similar NACA laminar-flow wing profile. Like the NA-50 before it, the 'advanced' NA-53 was of no interest to potential European customers - even as a second-string fighter. That same wing type was applied to a 1939 stopgap light fighter/fighter-trainer, the Ranger-powered SC-46 (later P-500) project. This too was rejected by the British and even the French (who were generally keen on such 'jockey fighter' concepts).

While Ed Schmued and Chief Engineer Ray Rice worked up such concepts, NAA General Manager 'Dutch' Kindelberger was visiting Europe to meet air force officials and tour aircraft plants. After inspecting the Messerschmitt factory in Germany, Kindelberger returned to the UK. There, he was approached by Air Ministry officials about the possibility of North American Aviation building Supermarine Spitfires to supplement British production. Kindelberger rejected this suggestion based in part on the Spitfire's complicated (and time-consuming) wing structure and partly on NAA's existing factory workload building trainers.

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 10, 2019, 04:10:58 AM
Thanks folks!

Now I've got a visual for my Centaurus powered MB5

Ooo, looking forward to that. I'd wondered about alternative-engine MB.3s but using the MB.5 gets around the ground visibility issues  :smiley:


I've already done a Sabre engined one, a Sabre VIII to be exact.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2019, 04:47:06 AM
I've already done a Sabre engined one, a Sabre VIII to be exact.


Yes, nice one Robert !  I remember your Long-Ranger (and loved those markings!)  :smiley:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8367.msg150388#msg150388 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8367.msg150388#msg150388)

Also just very cool keeping Sir James' designs in the Napier family  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 10, 2019, 10:09:32 PM
I've already done a Sabre engined one, a Sabre VIII to be exact.


Yes, nice one Robert !  I remember your Long-Ranger (and loved those markings!)  :smiley:

[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8367.msg150388#msg150388[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8367.msg150388#msg150388[/url])

Also just very cool keeping Sir James' designs in the Napier family  ;)


Fitting a Centaurus from a Sea Fury to the MB5 will fit just as good, I found the fuselage cross-section at the engine bulkhead of the two aircraft was practically the same.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 11, 2019, 04:43:50 AM
The Whif bit ...

North American and the 'Simplified Spitfire'

Although the Air Ministry was already issuing Specifications for Spitfire replacements, it was understood that these Specs would not bear fruit for some time. By way of challenge, 'Dutch' Kindelberger was asked whether his firm was capable of designing a 'Simplified Spitfire' for the interim. Kindelberger was confident that North American Aviation could indeed devise a 'Simplified Spitfire' in the short term. Discussion then turned to the specifics of such a design.

In the minds of Air Ministry staff, any 'Simplified Spitfire' would need a great deal of commonality with existing service Spitfire Mk.I fighters. This included the 1,030 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine and its DH constant-speed propeller. The cockpit and radio installations must also be unchanged. [1] Armament was also to be unchanged, consisting of eight .303-inch Browning machine guns with a minimum of 300 rounds per gun. General performance was to at least match that of a Supermarine-built Spitfire Mk.I. No other firm requirements were made but value would be assigned to the use of as many standard Spitfire components as possible.

With an agreement in place for the design of an experimental 'Simplified Spitfire', Kindelberger booked passage home to Los Angeles. Long-distance telephone calls had already set the design wheels in motion. Ed Schmued was assigned the task of drafting a design that would allow a Spitfire development to be built at the speeds Kindelberger had witnessed in Germany (and knew that NAA was quite capable of). Rough design work was begun while 'Dutch' returned home with cases of Spitfire drawings copied on microfilm. But, unbeknownst to Kindelberger or Schmued, an even greater gift would soon arrive at the NAA offices at Mines Field, Los Angeles.

In August 1938, 19 Sqn RAF received Spitfire Mk.I K9792 (c/n 6) for operational use from RAF Duxford, Cambridgeshire. Just over a month later, K9792 would be written-off when it flipped over in a landing accident. After damage assessment, the wings, rudder, and cowl was removed for scrapping. The slightly-damaged fuselage was then crated for shipment to NAA where it was to act as a partial pattern airframe. Accompanying K9792 was a sample DH airscrew (to replace the non-running Merlin II's damaged wooden 2-blader). No repair work was undertaken before shipment to the US.

NA-53M - A 'Simplified Spitfire' Takes Shape

By the time that K9792 arrived at San Pedro Bay, work had began on replacement wings. In its crash, K9792's bottom longerons had been distorted by impact around its wing mounting points. This proved a moot point as Ed Schmued had already decided to replace Supermarine's 'bolt-on' separate wing panel approach. Instead, the  uninterrupted, one-piece wing design from the 'Super NA-50' and P.509 projects was to be adapted to the Spitfire. To that end, the damaged portions and much of the rest of K9792's lower fuselage was removed. The intention was to allow quicker assembly and attachment of both wings and a new belly radiator bath (also adapted from the P.509).

Top Ex-K9792 acting as an engineering mock-up for the NA-53M. [2] Note new wing cut-out and belly radiator scoop. The damaged Spitfire vertical tail later formed the basis for a wooden NA-53M tailplane mock-up. [3]

Forming a working mock-up and acting as a prototype of sorts, the revised K9792 would never fly again. Instead, the first 'Simplified Spitfire' to fly was the first production airframe, NA330, which incorporated a number of components raided from K9792 to speed the assembly process. Such was the urgency assigned to the type, that it was ordered into production off the drawing board. Before NA330 was rolled out of NAA's plant at LA in December 1939, the British Purchasing Commission had already order 200 new fighters for the RAF under the name North American Nemesis Mk.I.

Bottom The first North American Aviation NA-53M Nemesis, NA330. This aircraft was flown in full RAF markings (note small US civil experimental registration 'NX-330F' marked below the horizontal tail surfaces).
____________________________

[1] This meaning the bulged Perspex sliding hood and exterior armour-glass windscreen installation as well as mountings for an HF TR9 R/T set (with allowance for future VHF T/R Type 1133 installation).

[2] For unrecorded reasons, the North American Aviation drawing office regarded the 'Simplified Spitfire' as a continuation of their NA-53 sequence. Accordingly, the redesign was assigned the NAA 'Charge Account' number NA-53M (for Merlin).

[3] The NA-53M's squared-off horizontal tails were never applied to the engineering mock-up. When the mock-up was stripped to provide components, hatches, etc. for NA330, the stabilizers and elevators were removed from ex-K9792 for return to the UK.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 11, 2019, 06:21:29 AM
Now that has potential for some very interesting future developments as well as some fascinating whiffs.  Beautiful work, Apophenia.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 11, 2019, 10:47:03 AM
Hmmm!? [where's the "thinks" emoji when you need it?]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on October 11, 2019, 02:10:11 PM
 :icon_alabanza:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on October 11, 2019, 04:54:56 PM
ooh....I could be a little hot and sweaty!
Nicely done by the way ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2019, 02:29:25 AM
Thanks folks!  :D

Nemesis - The 'Simplified Spitfire' Delivered

The first batch of 20 North American NA-53M Nemesis fighters rolled out of NAA's plant at LA in late May 1940. As intended, these airframes were far from complete. Crated and shipped incomplete from LA to Southampton, all standard Spitfire components were to be installed in the UK. Airframe wings, forward fuselages, and tailplanes were boxed separately. Unfortunately, these crates were also divided between two different cargo ships ... a pattern which would be avoided in future.

For this first Nemesis batch, four of the wing sets and all of the tailplanes were hoisted aboard a Greek cargo ship at San Pedro Bay. Just under a month later - on 19 June 1940 - the 3,440 ton SS Adamandios Georgandis was torpedoed by U-28 off the south-west coast of Ireland. Of the ship's crew, 14 survived the attack but 41 were killed. All onboard Nemesis parts accompanied the SS Adamandios Georgandis almost 9 fathoms down to the bottom of the Atlantic.

Such was the urgent need for modern fighters, that 16 of the first Nemesis batch were assembled without tails. [1] Fortunately, at the tail break point ( fuselage station 19), the Nemesis was identical to the Spitfire. So, to the list of needed Spitfire components to complete the Nemesis was added tailplanes. Many of the needed components were gleaned from damaged Spitfires under repair. As a result, hybrid fighters could be fairly quickly delivered with Spitfire tails. These 16 hybrids were designated Nemesis Mk.Ia.

Top A Nemesis Mk.Ia of No. 92 (East India) Squadron, RAF Biggin Hill, September 1940. Note the standard Spitfire tailplane distinct to this hybrid Mark.

The second Nemesis series were shipped with complete airframe crates batched together to avoid the confusion of Nemesis Mk.Ia. The first Nemesis Mk.I airframes arrived at Southampton in late July 1940. All 20 Mk.Is from this batch were in squadron service by the end of August 1940.

Bottom Vi et armis: a standard Nemesis Mk.I, No. 65 Squadron, RAF Hornchurch, October 1940.

__________________________

[1] The remaining four wingless and tailless Nemesis fuselages were retained as spares.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 13, 2019, 04:51:02 AM
In the Morgan/Shacklady book, it says that Supermarine actually did look at a P-51 style radiator installation.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 13, 2019, 05:08:22 AM
More interesting whiffing candidates in this installment.  I love the look you have here.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 13, 2019, 06:30:35 AM
They'll probably ban me from the pub for this but I like your version even better than the original!

That radiator installation seems most sensible and along with the squared off fin/rudder gives it a very tough, workman like appearance.

Well done, apophenia!

 :icon_beer:
(last pint before the landlord reads this)
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: AXOR on October 13, 2019, 07:03:20 AM
Woow...just awesome...I mean...wooow
I must bring into discussion that fantastic Bell model 11/XP-45 which deserve at some point...racing clothes
So many great works since my last visit...great job sir !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 13, 2019, 07:58:30 AM
Love it Stephen. Just a comment, see that first vertical panel line behind the exhaust stubs, that's what's called Frame 5, also the engine bulkhead. It's also where the wing main spar was attached to.  On the Spiteful, the laminar wing main spar was also attached there, so what would it look like if you moved the wing forward a bit, and line up the spar line of the Mustang wing to it.

When I built this below, I goofed up on where the wing should have been. I'm going to move it forward sometime in the future and line the spar up with the Frame 5.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 13, 2019, 11:15:39 AM
Thanks folks.

Robert: I considered following the Spiteful example but, in the end, went with shallow aesthetics rather than reality  :-[

My dodge was removing most of the lower half of the Spitfire. The rationale was that the one-piece wing could be mounted anywhere along the new lower longerons. Realistic? Probably not ... but I like the overall balanced look of the RW Mustang.

Relating to that ...gotta say I really like the look of your "goofed up" Spiteful   :smiley:  Somehow the accurate Spiteful never quite looks 'right' to me  :icon_surprised:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 14, 2019, 03:43:12 AM
Long-Range - The PR Nemesis and the Birth of the Mustang

North American had designed the Nemesis to accommodate Spitfire-style under-wing radiators should the RAF prefer that option. However, the adoption of the under-slung belly radiator bath left the rear portion of the NA-53M's laminar-flow wing 'empty'. The RAF would later accept North American's suggestion of addition fuel tanks in the wings. This led to the longer-range 'Intruder' Nemesis F.Mk.II and cannon-armed F.Mk.IIA.

Proceeding both long-range fighter variants into service was the Nemesis PR Mk.III. This unarmed photo-reconnaissance aircraft made for a much simpler conversion than the equivalent, wet-winged PR Spitfires. The Nemesis PR Mk.III also had 'longer legs' than the early PR Spitfires.

Top Nemesis PR Mk.III of No. 1 Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, RAF Benson, late February 1941.

The USAAF had long had an interest in the Nemesis since it dramatically out-performed their P-40s. American pilots had a brief opportunity to test fly NA330 before she was disassembled for shipment but, with its litany of UK-made Spitfire components,  production of the Nemesis for US use simply wasn't practical. Actually, the entire approach to producing the Nemesis would eventually come to be seen as impractical for all concerned.

North American Aviation was encouraged by the British to develop a Nemesis variant entirely independent of UK-built parts. With its own future use in mind, the USAAF was happy to release the Allison V-1710 V-12 engine to power such a variant. Ed Schmued concluded that NAA could devise a superior fuselage to the Nemesis' Spitfire-based unit and began a complete redesign. The result was the NA-73X of which two prototypes were built - the first being delivered to the A&AEE at Boscombe Down, the second going to the USAAF for testing and development.

Bottom North American NA-73X (second prototype), undergoing USAAF trials at Wright Field, Autumn 1942. Note that this aircraft's new retractable tail wheel is stuck in the 'down' position.

The NA-73 was quickly productionized as the North American Mustang for the RAF and P-51 for the USAAF. But that, as they say, is another story ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 14, 2019, 03:57:40 AM
I had to look twice at the NA-73X it's that convincing!

Few have your talent at rendering a natural metal finish, apophenia. Pardon the pun, but your work really shines here.

Outstanding!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 14, 2019, 04:00:29 AM
Thanks Brian. In truth, that shine came almost exclusively from a photo of N51Z - the restored "Shanty Irish"   ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 14, 2019, 06:00:27 AM
I had to look twice at the NA-73X it's that convincing!

Few have your talent at rendering a natural metal finish, apophenia. Pardon the pun, but your work really shines here.

Outstanding!
What he said.  Beautiful work and an elegant alternate to the NA-73X.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on October 14, 2019, 12:42:01 PM
Wasn't the Spiteful wing similar to the Mustang wing?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 14, 2019, 11:20:02 PM
Wasn't the Spiteful wing similar to the Mustang wing?

No, but it was Supermarine's attempt at a laminar flow wing, after Rolls Royce had discovered when they were converting a Mustang Mk.I to a Merlin engine and then testing it against a latest mark Spitfire with an identical Merlin and prop, that the Mustang was about 30 mph faster at almost all engine settings. They put it down to the wing that was making the difference. The closest you'll find to a Spiteful wing is on an Supermarine Attacker jet, which is what I used on my model because at the time I built it, I didn't know of any 1/72 Spiteful kit that was available.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 15, 2019, 05:05:48 AM
The Mustang had a one-piece wing (or, rather, port and starboard sections which were bolted together on the centre line). The Spiteful had a two separate wing panels which, as on the Spitfire, bolted onto the side of the fuselage (the main spar at fuselage frame 5, as kitnut617 noted earlier).

Other than that, in a general way, both fighters had 2-spar laminar-flow wings (with their main spars at the thickest point in the airfoil section (~30% of chord). Lots of detail differences, though.

The most obvious morphological difference was the Mustang's constant taper (except ahead of the wheel bays in versions before the 'light weights'). By contrast, the Spiteful wings' taper increased outboard of the gun bays. The Spiteful wing also had a noticeably reduced dihedral angle compared with a Mustang.

The Spiteful's wing taper dictated a slightly cranked rear spar. It also featured a reinforcing auxiliary spar along its leading edge. On the Mustang, an auxiliary spar was used only in front of the wheel well opening. A Mustang's flaps are separate from the wings. Spiteful flaps were split. Attached are plan-views of the two types (actually a navalized Seafang) roughly to scale.

BTW: The rear fuselage of the Spiteful XIV was essentially the same as that of the non-bubble canopies Spitfires. The Spiteful cockpit (and forward fuselage decking) were raised by comparison with the Spit.

... The closest you'll find to a Spiteful wing is on an Supermarine Attacker jet, which is what I used on my model because at the time I built it, I didn't know of any 1/72 Spiteful kit that was available.

I did the same back in the day  ...  Rareplanes vacuform Spiteful combined with Frog Attacker wings  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on October 15, 2019, 06:07:00 AM
To elaborate on the Spitfire/Spiteful wings, they had a main spar and an auxiliary spar (rear) which was basically used to mount the control surfaces to. The main spar connected to the fuselage using a massive seven-bolt drop-forged interlocking lug, the auxiliary spar though was connected with a single pin which was held in place by a washer and cotter pin. This pin was horizontal and ran parallel to the fuselage centerline. In effect, it means the auxiliary spar could 'flap' up or down and I've always thought that under extreme maneuvers, there was some sort of 'wing-warping' going on which would enhance what the ailerons were doing, the wing twisting around the main spar.

All this I've got from the Morgan/Shacklady book, except where my thoughts are.

The rear fuselage of the second and third prototype Spiteful also had the same side profile as a standard Spitfire, but a different cross-section above the datum longeron to accommodate the raised cockpit. However, Frame 19 (the tail assembly joint frame) was the same as any Spitfire.

I built this a while ago mating a Spiteful fuselage to a Spitfire wing
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 22, 2019, 09:26:54 AM
I built this a while ago mating a Spiteful fuselage to a Spitfire wing

Very nice, Robert  :smiley:  Some time ago, I did an ur-Spiteful profile somewhat along that line ...

But for now, some election-day trouble-making ...  >:D
__________________________

Canada's Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) which collapsed in the Spring of 2023. DND attempted to launch a New Future Fighter Capability (NFFC) project without success. After the 44rd Canadian general election (held on 16 October 2023), a major bureaucratic revisions to defence procurement was made. Under those revisions, the AIR 3026 program was begun.

AIR 3026 Phase 1 - aka CSIA/AISC or the Canadian Sovereignty Interceptor Aircraft Program/Programme canadien des aéronefs intercepteurs de la souveraineté - represented a broader contest for a more restricted fighter role. [1] This was one outcome of the 2023-2027 Canada Defence Plan resulting from a majority agreement within Parliament. AIR 3026 moved through to completion with tremendous speed (by previous Canadian procurement standards) but the outcome would prove just as contentious.

Since most modern fighters are designed as multi-purpose aircraft, it proved difficult to find a range of dedicated interceptors. As potential AIR 3026 candidates were winnowed, only one design remained viable - based on performance, availability, and cost. This was the J-20 'Mighty Dragon' from China's Chengdu Aerospace Corporation (CAC). Incorporating little Western technology, the J-20 immediately raised concerns over compatibility with the aircraft's primary intended role - satisfying Canada's NORAD commitments. The United States government also had ideological 'issues' with the supplier.

Unbeknownst to Washington, the J-20 purchase was actually a component of addressing Ottawa's own concerns about dealing with the People's Republic of China. A previous Canadian government had sign a trade treaty with the PRC - the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA) - which compromised Canadian sovereignty in several respects. [2] China was willing to abandon FIPA without penalty in exchange for opening Canadian military procurement - especially shipbuilding - to potential Chinese suppliers. So, the J-20 fit the bill for a new long-range RCAF interceptor while also meeting a pre-condition of escaping from the terms of FIPA.

Enter the 'Dragon - the CAC CF-200 Canuck II Interceptor

In RCAF service, the Chengdu interceptor would be known as the CF-200A Canuck II. It represented a slightly less capable fighter than its PLAAF equivalent - most notably in lacking the J-20's thrust-vectoring Shenyang WS-15 turbofan engines. Instead, the CF-200 retained the earlier Shenyang WS-10C engines - designated CFM/Shenyang TF-10 in the West. These engines reduce the CF-200's manoeuvrability (and 'supercruise' potential) but these were capabilities seen as non-essential for the Canadian interceptor role.

Equipment for the CF-200 has a mixture of Western and Chinese origin. Examples of retained PRC electronics include the PeDAS (Photo-electric Distributed Aperture System) electro-optic sensors, EORD-31 IR search and track, EOTS-86 EO targeting system, and AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar - assigned the JETDS/NORAD designation AN/APG(C)-98C. The most important Western electronics are the MADL (Multi-function Advanced Datalink) network and Link 16 communications system (installed in Canada at US DOD insistance).

From the RCAF's retiring CF-18M fleet, the CF-200 inherited the pilot's JHMCS (Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System), AN/ARC-210 radios, AN/AYQ-9 Stores Management System, and pylon-mounted ACMI (Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation) system. CF-18 330 gallon drop tanks can also be carried on the CF-200 Canuck II's removable wing pylons.

Also carried over from the CF-18M were AIM-120 missiles. Standard load in the CF-200A's main missile bay is four SD-15J long-range BVRAAMs. A shorter-range AIM-120 missile is carried on either side of the main bay (in a smaller, lateral weapon bay) for self-defence. [3] As needed, four wing pylons can be mounted and used to carry weapons (although, as noted above, these pylons are used almost exclusively to carry drop tanks for ferry flights).

Procurement Politics Go Cross-Border

Multiple objections were made to the Canadian purchase of a Chinese-made interceptor to satisfy NORAD. US President Mike Pence went so far as accusing Prime Minister McKenna of personal interference in the procurement process while endangering North American security. European objections to the RCAF abandoning the ground-attack role would ease once Canada confirmed that Land Forces (including upgraded Leopard 2a8M tanks) would soon be returning to reinforce NATO in Europe. How all this plays out politically, remains to be seen ...

____________________________

[1] Plans to fill the NORAD interceptor role while abandoning NATO/Coalition ground attack missions became an election issue in 2023. This decision sprang from choices made by Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Andrew Leslie, Parliamentary Secretary for Military Reform and Procurement.

[2] In official circles, this treaty was labelled the Canada-China Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Agreement (CCPRPIA). This agreement came to be seen to unfairly favour Chinese investors - including those representing state-owned Chinese businesses.

[3] AIM-120s often form the sole armament on twin-seat CF-200B trainers. On PLAAF J-20s, those lateral bays carry 'short-range' Luoyang PL-10 IR AAMs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on October 22, 2019, 09:38:40 AM
Wow. You are a real s**t disturber tonight!  ;D

Looks like I will have to now build my J-20 as a CF-200.

Nice touch given tonight's entertainment.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 22, 2019, 05:29:29 PM
Anything named Canuck I can't help but support. And buy a beer.
 :icon_beer:
Or two
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
or three
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
Not that they drink too much or anything.

Yet more fantastic profiles that are utterly convincing. And get more convincing the more beers you have.
 :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer: :icon_beer:
I think I'd better call a cab.
 :-X
Great stuff, Apophenia!
 8)
Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 23, 2019, 01:29:00 PM
 ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do the avionics come with built in backdoors, to allow remote access?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on October 25, 2019, 07:23:31 AM
<...>
Looks like I will have to now build my J-20 as a CF-200. <...>

Same here.  :smiley: Have one in the stash - though it may be amongst the drowned and warped ones, not sure -, but no real whiffing idea for it. Until now. Leafy roundels look great on this.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2019, 10:03:53 AM
Thanks folks! I'd love to see the CF-200 in polystyrene

Do the avionics come with built in backdoors, to allow remote access?  ;D

Jon: Doubtless that was the original plan. However, the immense distances involved precluded remote access (it's almost 9,500 km from PVG to the RCAF's FOL at YFB, for example). Thus, a simpler approach was needed.

The solution arrived at by the Ministry of State Security (MSS) was the CHEATER (Chinese Hidden Electronics Access Technician, Emergency Response) programme. Under CHEATER, Chengdu was directed by the MSS to include a false wall in the avionics bay. Inside that conditioned compartment, a diminutive agent awaited any signal from home to hit the 'kill' switch.

As an elite unit, the CHEATER programme accepted only select individuals. Firstly, CHEATER operatives could measure no more than 150 cm in height and weigh less than 45 kg. Successful CHEATER candidates must also produce transcripts proving that they have graduated in the bottom third of their class. Although a lonely occupation, CHEATER accommodations are pressurized with avionics provide heat (for technician comfort) and microwave radiation (for zapping pre-packaged noodles and gaifan).

"... Don't matter how stumpy!"

The extent of the CHEATER programme only became apparent due to malfunctions with its sophisticated Fēngmì tǒng (蜂蜜桶) system. Following standard PRC commercial practices (eg, Chinese-flagged freighters about to enter Canadian waters), the 'FT' was to be emptied only once the CF-200 began its final approach. Contrary to official expectations, these 'Honey Bucket' bombing runs did not remain completely unnoticed. Aircraft Structure Technician complaints about unsightly (and rather pungent) staining of the RF-shielding paintwork aft of the avionics bays also raised RCAF suspicions.

Once the first CHEATER operatives were uncovered (and immediately rushed to the nearest shower facilities for a hose-down), Ottawa issued a formal protest to Ambassador Cong Peiwu at the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Canada. In H.E. Mr. Cong response, it was noted that CHEATER operatives were technically employees of Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation). As such, CHEATER operatives were simply exercising their remaining rights under the amended FIPA treaty. It seemed that an impasse had been reached. However, the RCAF found its own solution to these unwelcome hitchhikers.

An AvsTech at CFB Bagotville suggested a simply but highly-effective 'cure'. The key to cplc JS Tonsourd's plan was wiring a cheap (but not Chinese-made) MP3 player and speaker into the avionics bay. A perpetual loop of My Heart Will Go On and Pour Que Tu M'aimes Encore would then be broadcast towards the CHEATER compartment. Once implemented, Chinese officials denounced this RCAF move as psychological warfare. Ottawa rejected this claim. Firstly, the PRC had said that CHEATER operatives were civilian employees of Sinopec. Secondly, as was well-known, everyone loves Céline Dion!

One outcome of the RCAFs 'Co-Chea' (Counter CHEATER) campaign was a sudden spike in refugee claims emanating from the vicinity of their avionics compartments. For his efforts, caporal-chef Tonsourd was named 'Airperson of the Year' for 2026.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 25, 2019, 11:19:25 AM
*SNORT!*  I loved that!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 26, 2019, 11:24:13 AM
Cheers Evan!

Now in the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB ... The North American NA-60A Notenkraker:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8810.msg161429#new (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8810.msg161429#new)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on October 26, 2019, 08:16:14 PM
You've come up with more stunners, apophenia!

Those are great! Headed over to the GB thread now...

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 01, 2019, 06:19:51 AM
'Nuther one for the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB ... The Douglas B-22B Dragon.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8819.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8819.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 01, 2019, 07:45:13 AM
Headed over there now. Wow what a beauty!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 05, 2019, 09:15:15 AM
I started this one for the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB ... but it just didn't pan out  :P

The idea was a growth version of the Curtiss Hawk (expedited once USAAC P-40Bs were exposed to Bf 109Es over France). The problem was that I was planning for a twin-row Wright radial sized between the R-1820 and the R-2600. I ended up with a WHIF R-2075 putting out 1,410 hp (6.125" bore x 5.5") ... which doesn't provide much advantage over the proven Twin Wasp.

The lower profile was to represent an engine testbed I'd call the XP-42B. Besides the engine gubbins, the main changes were the lengthened tail section and revised canopy (meant to test the glazing intended for the production type). The pointy spinner is just to emphasize the P-40 link.

The upper profile depicts the P-60 which was to be a 'clean-sheet' design. Instead, wartime urgency produced this compromised P-60A model. Instead of the intended all-new airframe, the new laminar-flow wing - with a NACA 63(1)-412 airfoil - was joined with a modified P-40 fuselage and the XP-42B's extended tail. To my eyes, the overall effect of the P-60A ended up being clunky and ill-proportioned. So, I pulled the plug on this one ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 05, 2019, 04:59:21 PM
 ??? Doesn't look bad to me. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on November 05, 2019, 05:44:53 PM
I think this quite attractive. The upper version has a slight  Lavochkin La-7  vibe to it
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 05, 2019, 10:49:05 PM
At first glance at that Stephen, I thought at first you had used an Asch-82 engine, like how it was installed on a Hurricane. It wouldn't be very hard to make a model of it, just use the cowling from the Omega Hurricane kit (or a copy of it  ;) )
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 06, 2019, 04:45:09 AM
P&W's R-1830 powered take on a radial engined Hawk 81/P-40, evidently it regularly out flew Merlin powered P-40Fs
stationed at a nearby base:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-sgjPBxZ/0/7a02317a/O/NX28990.jpg)

Drawings from a Russian monograph, take with a grain of salt.  ;D :icon_fsm:
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-sR7nLCz/0/9462b7f9/O/18.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-xtSwWt2/0/6d3d1e8a/O/19.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-DgJBtHB/0/ce0e8d16/O/20.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 06, 2019, 07:07:11 AM
Those are some very sleek P-36s and the new engine at least adds a fast look!

The OD one up top appears loaded for bear. Whether or not it could catch said bear remains to be seen... ;D

Always great to see your latest, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 06, 2019, 08:49:34 AM
Here's a goofy thought, a three-row radial using R-1535 components, the R-2300,
that way you get a 44" diameter allowing a sleek profile. 
;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 07, 2019, 09:28:38 AM
Thanks folks.

Brian: You touch it with a needle! If yer gonna be called a 'pursuit', you'd better be able to catch something  ;D

Robert: My first thought was the ASh 82 too ... but there's not much to distinguish the Shvetsov (roughly 'R-2515') from the available R-2600. Power outputs are similar but so too are dry weights (~ 2,045 lbs for the R-2600, 1,900-2,000 lbs for most ASh 82 variants).

I'm not sure why but I was expecting the ASh 82 to be lighter. It occurred to me later that my whif engine was roughly the same size as a Gnome-Rhône 14N. The French engine was lighter (1,370 lbs dry) but, in our timeframe, only generating 1,180 hp for T/O  :P

Jon: Thanks for that. I had P&W's Hawk 81 testbed in mind but had never before seen in drawings.

I like your idea of less Junior Twin Wasp  :smiley:  Just because Armstrong-Siddeley couldn't get a triple-row radial to work, doesn't mean it couldn't be done. Indeed, at that time, Pratt would've been the one to put your money on to make it happen!
_________________________

Okay ... new stuff. I had another go at a P-36/radial P-40 evolution which I'm a bit happier about. (Still not really fitting into the GB though, I reckon.)

In this case, the top profile is a P-42B engine testbed for the Wright XR-2600-1. As before, the tail has been moved aft in an attempt to restore c/g. As shown, a small spinner has replaced the original, large spinner removed in a not entirely successful effort to cure engine overheating. Note the gun barrel aperture in the cowling for synchronized .50s.

The production-model P-60B Superhawks eliminated the cowl guns in favour of four wing-mounted .50-calibres. A new, forward-fuselage fuel tank replaced the P-40's rear fuselage tank in some models of P-60 and augmented that rear tank in others. Less obvious is that the entire forward fuselage has been lengthened, pushing the cockpit aft (relative to the P-36/P-40).

The lower profile shows a P-60B-CU-2 - one of the longer-range Superhawk models that retained the rear fuselage tank. The 18th Pursuit Group was based out of Hawaii but the 44th Pursuit Squadron was redeployed to the Azores in July 1940. [1] By the beginning of 1941, the 44th's P-40Cs were being replaced with higher-performing P-60Bs.
___________________________

[1] The US occupation of the Azores was completed under 'War Plan Gray'. Just as British forces invaded and 'secured' Iceland in May 1940, the US occupied the Azores without Portuguese permission on 22 June 1940.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 08, 2019, 06:18:36 AM
Oh my now these are even better!

I never thought I'd see the P-36 look, dare I say it, sleek and sexy!

Fantastic!

You've outdone yourself on these apophenia.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 09, 2019, 01:49:07 AM
Hmmm....one of these would look good with a ducted spinner me thinks... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 09, 2019, 02:28:51 AM
And a bubble canopy ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 09, 2019, 07:15:01 AM
Hmmm, might have to try those. But, meanwhile ...

Sometimes one aircraft type is simply overshadowed by another, better design. Such was to be the fate of the Brewster F3A Barracuda naval fighter. Somehow the Barracuda could never escape association with the more powerful Vought F4U Corsair. It was also - however unfairly - always connected with its mediocre predecessor, the F2A Buffalo.

It rankled management at the Brewster Aeronautical Corporation that its submission for the US Navy's Competition SD112-13 had been overlooked. Instead, the Bureau of Aeronautics had chosen Vought to build this R-2800-powered naval fighter. But things seemed to be looking up for Brewster when Vought's XF4U proved all but impossible to carrier land. Dayton Brown in Brewster's design office quickly drew up a rival scheme as an unsolicited F2A replacement fighter.

The Brewster Proposal 40 concept was obviously derived from the Buffalo but there were so many changes as to make it a fresh design. It was based on the less powerful Wright R-2600 14-cylinder radial which was viewed as being further along in development than Pratt's 18-cylinder R-2800 engine. The BuAer accepted Brewster's proposal and ordered a prototype built as the XF3A-1. This prototype matched the F2A wing with engine power more than 50% higher. By comparison with the F2A, the XF3A-1's performance was spectacular but the fine handling of the former was lost.

Top Brewster XF3A-1 prototype. Note SB2A-style cowling, F2A-type canopy, [1] wings, and under-fuselage viewing window.

Nevertheless, a small batch of F3A-2 production aircraft were ordered. These differed from the prototype (and the cancelled F3A-1 series) in having an enlarged tailplane and squared off wing tips. A 'full-blown' canopy was also introduced after production had begun. Alas, by then, the Barracuda (as Brewster's marketing department had dubbed the F3A) was revealing its true nature. As a carrier fighter, the Brewster was a dead loss. In some aspects, the F3A-2's landing-on characteristics were even worse than the Corsair's. By the time that F3A-2s were being delivered, US Navy planning had already shifted emphasis to Grumman's superior F6F Hellcat.

Anticipating the fate of US Corsairs, the F3A-2s were diverted to the USMC. The first to take on the new Brewster was Marine Fighting Squadron 221 which had just given up its F2A-3s upon return to Hawaii. The unit then 2e-equipped with Brewster F3A-2s at Marine Corps Air Station Ewa on Oahu. In February 1943, the squadron and its aircraft were loaded aboard the USS Nassau (CVE-16) for transport to Espiritu Santo. VMF-221 joined attack squadron VMA-214 for the fight on Guadalcanal.

Guadalcanal would be the high point in the career of the Brewster F3A. A handful for even experienced pilots when landing-on, the US Navy wisely moved on. The Marines were happy to replace their F4Fs ... but the Brewster's armament was limited (six-gunned Wildcats were now appearing). After Guadalcanal was liberated, both Marine units would re-equip with F4U Corsairs.

Bottom Brewster F3A-3 Barracuda fighter on Guadalcanal. Note the square-tipped wings, extended fin, and lack of belly glazing. This F3A-3 features a 'clear-view' canopy.

This aircraft was flown by Major William C. Humberd, USMC. Note that the individual aircraft number has been partially over-painted by the newly-added 'bars' on the national insignia. [2] A new aircraft number in white features on the cowling. Other, less official, markings include a '221' Barracuda on the cowl and 'kill' flags beneath the cockpit.
__________________________

[1] Although hard to spot, the XF3A-1's rear glazed area is slightly reduced compared with the F2A type.

[2] Red outlines were applied only to the fuselage rounder. Wing roundels had only plain white bars added.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 09, 2019, 09:23:27 PM
Wow that's one beautiful Brewster! Now those are two words you don't see together often...

Your modifications look entirely plausible and the new canopy is something I could see them doing if the Buffalo had been successful enough for a follow-on. You did a fantastic job representing a nicely worn USN scheme and those cool red-surround 1943 U.S. markings are a nice bonus!

Another feast for the eyes, apophenia! Very well done!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 09, 2019, 11:04:13 PM
Looks, oddly, a little like a short, tubby F6F. :-\


("A little", I said! ::))
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 10, 2019, 03:28:22 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 10, 2019, 07:18:17 AM
Thanks folks!

Hmmm....one of these would look good with a ducted spinner me thinks... ;)

And a bubble canopy ---

Had a go ...

The top one with the ducted spinner I'm calling the Curtiss Hawk 81S - since the XP-42 was a Hawk 75S ;)

The bottom one was just going to have a sliding canopy similar to that on the XP-40Q-2. Then its started sprouting a turbocharger, belly intercooler, got stretched, and (eventually) a completely new tail and a new wing centre section with a slight inverted gull (for prop clearance with the same main undercarriage).

Can't say that I really like either of them. An evolved P-36 or P-40 might look good with that 'bubble' canopy ... but a bit incongruous as well, me thinks.

Back onto whif engines ... I'd forgotten that Pratt & Whitney's R-2180-1 Twin Hornet was proposed for at least one fighter design - the Republic P-44 Rocket (cancelled as obsolete in September 1940). Although I'm not sure why Pratt called their R-2180 a Twin Hornet. It had slightly more bore and half inch more stroke than the R-1830 Twin Wasp but less than either of the RW Hornet engines.

So, what about those historical Hornets - the R-1690 (beginning in 1926) and the R-1860 (from 1929 on)? What happens if you turn those Hornets into twin-row radials? The obvious whif developments would be an R-2628 Twin Hornet (a 14-cylinder to rival Wright's R-2600) or an R-2890 Double Hornet. Jumping up to 18-cylinders gives you a whif R-3380 Duplex Hornet (a rival for the Wright R-3350) or a jumbo R-3720 (nudging into RW R-4360 territory).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 10, 2019, 07:46:44 AM
That bubble top looks great Stephen   :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 10, 2019, 07:59:47 AM
That bubble top looks great Stephen   :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Concur. Now that's hot!

Your imagination is totally boundless and most enviable, apophenia.

As is your talent for rendering those fantastic finishes!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 10, 2019, 11:21:39 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2019, 12:32:03 PM
Another one intended for the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB which just won't fit that timeline ...
_________________________

The unexpected 1940 entry of the United States into the war in Europe precipitated a crisis at the Glenn L. Martin Company. The firm had contracts from both the US Navy and the Air Corps. The M-162 Mariner - known to the Navy as the XPMB-1 - was underpowered, had needed needed considerable redesign, [1] and remained troublesome. The M-179 prototype for the advanced B-26 Marauder bomber had flown in November 1940 but trouble was brewing there too.

As expected, the short-winged Marauder was a 'hot' ship to fly. Alas, the need to quickly enlarge the USAAC for overseas operations did not allow time for the degree of pilot training dictated by B-26 flying characteristics. Trial airframes were also demonstrating a range of equipment failures - from Curtiss propellers to landing gear. Not surprisingly, the type experienced a high accident rate but the Air Corps could not afford such routine failures in their latest bomber.

Martin Model 191B - Enter the XA-23A Marion

Fearing outright cancellation of the B-26, Martin's Project Engineer Peyton Magruder, drafted a fresh attack aircraft based on the B-26's 65 foot wings. These wing panels were matched with a shorter, more slender, and simpler to manufacture fuselage. This new structure was almost as narrow as the M-167F, dictating a single pilot cockpit. The tail gunner position was also eliminated (to save weight and improve streamlining) while the rear fuselage stepped down to accommodate the Martin 250 CE-1 dorsal turret. [2]

Bottom The XA-23A Marion prototype showing its defensive armament in their low-drag positions. (On the XA-23A, the Martin 250 CE was a 'dummy' due to non-availability of these turrets.)

Ordered by the Air Corps in a trial series, the XA-23A and Y1A-23B attack bombers were better-handling than the B-26 while retaining the larger aircraft's wings, tailplane, and many minor components. [3] The USAAC assigned the name Marion to the XA-23A/Y1A-23B series - following a short-lived Air Corps scheme to name bombers and attack aircraft after heroes of the Revolutionary War. [4] Initially, the A-23 was to powered by the same R-2800 18-cylinder radials as the B-26. However, PMB experiences had shown Martin that Wright's R-2600 14-cylinder radials were at a more advanced stage of development than the Pratt & Whitney R-2800s.

The R-2600-3 powered XA-23A was delivered to Wright Field in January 1941 for trials. In the meantime, the Martin factory outside Baltimore was laying down a dozen pre-series Y1A-23Bs. The trials at Wright Field went off without a hitch - the lighter XA-23B did indeed handle better than the B-26. However, the XA-23A performed rather less well in comparison with the Douglas A-20 Havoc attack aircraft about to enter USAAC service. With the same engines, the A-20A Havoc carried the same payload as the XA-23A but was lighter and simpler to produce. (The Havoc would ultimately prove capable of adopting the Martin powered turret but they were not essential - initial A-20s deliveries were armed with a simple, manually-operated flexible gun in the dorsal position.) There would be no production orders for the A-23 Marion.

Top A Y1A-23B Marion delivered for service trials. Note that, despite its Attack designation, this Marion has been delivered to a Bomber Squadron for trials.

Also note that the functional 250 CE-1 turret is rotated into its high-drag position with the guns facing forward and rear spine fairing retracted. The radio-operator's belly gun positions are also open and ready for action.

__________________________________

[1] The XPBM-1A featured a redesigned hull and dihedral added to its horizontal tails. These changes were incorporated into the production PBM-1 but the underpowered Mariner's remained brutes compared with the contemporary Consolidated PBY Catalinas.

[2] Development of this turret was running late but Martin was certain that it would be available in time for its new attack aircraft. For the record, that 250 CE-1 military designation stood for 2 x .50-calibre guns in a cylindrically-shaped, electrically-powered turret in its first variant.

[3] The 'A-23' designation was actually re-assigned from an earlier Martin project with twin Wright R-3350 radial engines.

[4] The XA-23A/Y1A-23B series were named after General Francis Marion - celebrated (and reviled) as 'The Swamp Fox' during the US war for independence.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 15, 2019, 10:27:33 PM
Loving the Curtissess (pluralise that! :-\) and the A-23! Sort of a Baltimore/Marauder hybrid.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2019, 03:13:55 AM
Cheers EH!  Yeah, exactly right on the A-23. The Marion was meant as Magruder's attempt to blend the B-26 with roughly a Maryland's layout ... which would then pre-empt the Baltimore.

ps: More Curtissesses to come  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 16, 2019, 10:54:04 AM
What a positively (Swamp) foxy aircraft!  You have a real eye for combining parts there.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 16, 2019, 12:44:46 PM
Cheers Evan!

EH: As promised, ... more Curtissesses for the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8843.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8843.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 17, 2019, 03:41:08 AM
Those Martins sure look good in pre-war colors!

You've really out-done yourself on these natural metal beauties!

I wonder if they ever developed an inline version...

Great stuff!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 17, 2019, 06:05:21 AM
Cheers Brian!

... I wonder if they ever developed an inline version...

Funny you should mention inlines. I found some images of the Martin Model 177 that Jon was talking about. Few details but it looks like twin Allisons to me. Probably gonna have to have a go at that RW M-177 proposal ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 17, 2019, 04:57:37 PM
The 177A is the one with inlines, the larger 177 had radials.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 18, 2019, 07:06:23 AM
The 177A is the one with inlines, the larger 177 had radials.  ;)


Ah, good to know. Thanks Jon. Any idea what radial engines were to be used?

OT: Another entry in the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8843.msg162295 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8843.msg162295)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 19, 2019, 07:28:32 AM
The Buttler and Griffith book states the engine type was unknown.

But here's a chart of the engines proposed for the Model 179, including the R-3350, so ...  ;):

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-NSsPf86/0/b8b7865c/O/MODEL_179_02.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 19, 2019, 08:41:45 AM
But here's a chart of the engines proposed for the Model 179, including the R-3350, so ...

So, anything so long as its BIG!  ;D  Cheers Jon!

I decided to have a go at the inline-engined M-177A attack bomber. I stuck fairly closely to the 3-view drawing on Secret Projects but used the nose glazing from the artist's impression (the glazing on the 3-view look too much like an A-20 for my liking). The rear cockpit is quite different between the 3-view and the artist's rendering. I went for the more prominent 3-view version ... just cuz' its so weird-looking!

Heaps of making up stuff to fill in the gaps (those forward cockpit openings, for example). Other than wheel placement, the undercarriage is pure invention (no details provided). Ditto for the bomb bays and any defensive weaponry. I thought that the big, honkin' tail bumper was a good touch - with that wheel placement, I'm guessing that the Model 177A was gonna need it  :o

Anyway, I find the Model 177A attractive ... in an odd sort of way. But also a puzzle. The rear cockpit is peculiar (was it have flexible guns pointing both forward and aft?). The forward cockpits are stranger still. Obviously the furthermost nose is for bomb-aiming. So, was the pilot stuck behind the bomb-aimer with scant view forward and the engines blocking any views to the sides? That'd be fun to fly!


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 20, 2019, 03:09:48 PM
Something 167ish perhaps for layout.

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-XRNBqfv/0/37a9fbfa/L/XA-22_16-L.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS-2/i-9x4r7WV/0/272bd0b1/XL/XA-22_11-XL.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 20, 2019, 03:15:10 PM
Of course the 177A would have to be escorted by Bell Model 3 fighters.  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 21, 2019, 04:01:12 AM
Whatever you do, don't let the fat guy (me) sit in the back!

It's got a real art deco look, apophenia! Talk about an engaging concept most excellently carried off!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 22, 2019, 08:49:20 AM
Of course the 177A would have to be escorted by Bell Model 3 fighters.  ;D


 ;D ;D ;D  Model 3 pilot and M-177A GIB will definitely feel the affinity!
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg121108#msg121108 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg121108#msg121108)

Brian:  Ooo, I like your "art deco look" bit! And, yes, weight distribution is going to be tricky. Helpful if any of the heftier air gunners were willing to to take the bomb-aimers' course ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 23, 2019, 11:56:09 AM
Inspired by Frank3K's Belize Defence Force Jet Provost T.3 model:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=vbtkp9suhcghdg5p97p95jjmn6&topic=8199.msg162340 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=vbtkp9suhcghdg5p97p95jjmn6&topic=8199.msg162340)

Frank reports that the four ex-RAF T.3s arrived from the UK in late 1981 - just in time to engage the May 1982 incursion by Guatemalan forces. That posed a question: What happened next?

The well-worn Jet Provosts served on as the BDF's sole combat aircraft for a decade. With no obvious replacements available. In October 1989, Belizean Prime Minister George Price made an appeal at the  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Kuala Lumpur. A response came from New Zealand's Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer. The RNZAF was soon to retire its fleet of BAC 167 Strikemaster Mk.88s - the armed attack derivative of Belize's in-service Jet Provost. After consulting with Lt-Gen Sir John Mace, the CDF in Wellington, Palmer offered Belize the donation of four Strikemaster upon their retirement from the RNZAF. [1]

New Zealand would not relinquish its Strikemasters until December 1992 but, in early 1991, BDF flight crews began exchange training with No. 14 Squadron RNZAF at Ohakea. In the Spring of 1993, four crated Strikemasters arrived by sea at the port of Belize City. [2] Three of the Mk.88s were re-assembled by seconded RNZAF personnel at Belize City Municipal Airport. Once tested and approved for operations, BDF crews flew their new mounts south to their new base at Placencia Airport. [3] After working up, the BDF Air Wing's newest unit, No. 1418 Flight, officially achieved full operational status on New Year's Day 1994 - to coincide with the disbanding of British Forces Belize.

Top Ex-RNZAF BAC Strikemaster Mk.88 in interim BDF markings, AB Placencia, Belize, January 1994

In the meantime, the BDF Air Wing's Jet Provost fleet had been reduced to two operational aircraft. 'JPs' 02 and 04 were grounded to act as spares for the operational aircraft. With the Strikemasters taking over the armed role, the Soviet rocket pods were removed from the 'JPs'. [4] Thereafter, the remaining two Jet Provosts alternated in the role of operational trainer for the Strikemasters.

Bottom BDF-AW Strikemaster Mk.88 forward deployed to Hector Silva airstrip outside Belmopan during the December 1998 border dispute with Guatemala. This aircraft has been refurbished and wears the new 'air superiority' grey finish.

_____________________________

[1] This required negotiations with Aermacchi which had taken some of the RNZAF Mk.88s in trade as part of New Zealand's MB339CB procurement.

[2] Re-numbered simply as 01-through-04, the former New Zealand serials for the donated Strikemasters were: NZ6362, NZ6363, NZ6370, and NZ6375/G.

[3] The fourth Strikemaster, NZ6375/G, was flown by RNZAF Hercules to Placencia where it was assembled  to act as an instructional airframe.

[4] The UB-20-80 rocket pods were redeployed with 1 Battalion where they acted as truck-mounted indirect fire support - mass-firings of S-8 rockets on exercises near the Guatemalan border serving as noisy demoralizers of opposing conscript troops.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 24, 2019, 01:53:33 AM
You're hitting the sweet-spot of smaller air arms with Belize and that top one is a real stunner, apophenia!

What a treat to pop in on a Saturday and see more of your amazing art!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 24, 2019, 03:13:20 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on November 24, 2019, 03:41:44 AM
I was looking for a good reason to get another copy of the excellent Airfix Provost/Strikemaster! Both look great - the air superiority gray especially. Although the top one, with the extra markings looks awesome, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 25, 2019, 12:10:18 PM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8851.msg162407#msg162407 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8851.msg162407#msg162407)

Jon has posted about the RW Martin Model 177 light attack bomber project. There are general similarities between the M-177 and the Model 177A project. Both have long, continuously-glazed noses and both are twin-tailled.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg162320#msg162320 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg162320#msg162320)

By comparison with the Model 177A project, the Model 177's twin tails are shaped differently and the wings are lower-mounted. In the cse of the Model 177, those wings appear to be identical to those of the built Model 167 XA-22/Maryland. Other than the glazed noses, the fuselages are also rather different shapes.

The most obvious differences between these two unbuilt projects are that the Model 177A was for a liquid-cooled twin with a tricycle gear while the Model 177 had a more conservative, 'tail-dragger' undercarriage. There's nothing conservative about its air-cooled engines, however. These are listed as "unknown" but strongly resemble the later Pratt & Whitney R-4360.

In the lower view, I've shown the Martin 177 armed with its "retractable" dorsal turret in the extended position. (Note that there is no sign of a sliding hatch to cover this turret when retracted a la the Model 167 XA-22.) The large, air-cooled engines have been exposed and depicted as 4-row radials. The fully-retractable undercarriage I have based upon that of the Model 167.

In the upper, flying view, I've shown the Martin 177 armed with its tail 'stinger' .50-calibre gun. I've also shown the "retractable" dorsal turret in its retracted position (as on Jon's artist's view, this turret is shown to be only partially retractable). I've tried to stay as close as possible to the 3-view drawing ... with one exception.

Jon's 3-view drawing shows 'greeblies' on the top-rear of the nacelles which I have interpreted as exhaust covers. However, for the size of the engine depicted, I can't see how such exhaust outlets would be adequate. As speculation, I've double the exhaust outlets per side - so, there are now exhaust outlets above and below the wings.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 26, 2019, 04:40:06 AM
I like this one a lot apophenia, but I can't help seeing it with just one radial up front.

Fodder for another time, perhaps.

Thank you for more outstanding art!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on November 26, 2019, 05:52:14 AM
I like this one a lot apophenia, but I can't help seeing it with just one radial up front.

In the thumbnail it does look like a big honkin' radial in the nose with a small cockpit way back towards the tail.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 27, 2019, 01:39:59 AM
I like this one a lot apophenia, but I can't help seeing it with just one radial up front.

In the thumbnail it does look like a big honkin' radial in the nose with a small cockpit way back towards the tail.

Indeed
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 27, 2019, 11:05:14 AM
Okay, couldn't resist. Here is the single-engined Martin Mutt aka Model 177YOY ...

This was sure-fire winner of a design. Drag was reduced by having only one engine. The crew were safely ensconced in their aft compartment, away from any engine noise or vibration.

The breakthrough was realizing that the same periscopic system could be used for both viewing the runway beneath the aircraft and for bomb-aiming. The only disappointment for the design department was realizing that the drag-defeating spatted undercarriage would block the pilot's periscopic view when landing. Regretfully, the design team was forced to adopt a fully-retractable undercarriage in lieu of those aerodynamically-superior spats  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 28, 2019, 01:54:20 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on November 28, 2019, 05:37:25 AM
You're very kind and I find this one most delightful!

If you gave it Italian markings, few would doubt it wasn't "real".

Most excellent apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 28, 2019, 06:00:37 AM
While they were developing the R-4360 they mocked up various configurations including:
5 row, left-hand spiral, 7 cylinders per row (R-2800 cylinders) = 35 cylinders 5,444 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 5 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 30 cylinders 4,671 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 6 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 36 cylinders 5,605 in3 disp.
 ;) :smiley: :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on November 28, 2019, 06:58:39 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on November 30, 2019, 01:35:21 AM
Okay, couldn't resist. Here is the single-engined Martin Mutt aka Model 177YOY ...

snip


This is turning me a little bit... perhaps a bit more than a bit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on November 30, 2019, 03:17:29 AM
Beautiful!!  Will we see a high-performance tri-motor combining the "standard" M-177 wing and engines with the Mutt?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 30, 2019, 10:02:31 AM
Ah yes. What Evan is referring to, of course, is the Martin Model 177T (or 177Tri). Although impressive, the trimotor Model 177 concepts are largely forgotten today. In drafting these designs, Peyton Magruder initially intended to sacrifice all else in favour of low altitude speed. However, the Planning Section of the Equipment Division rejected the basic premise of the Model 177T - that speed was all.

The aircraft envisioned by Magruder featured a crew of only two - the pilot and a somewhat over-worked bomb-aimer - who also acted as observer and navigator. High speed, Magruder concluded, obviated the need for any defensive armament. For the (illustrated) ninth and final draft of the M-177T, Magruder succumbed to the judgement of the Equipment Division planners and included a defensive gun turret manned by a third crew member. However, estimates revealed that weight gain and added drag would reduce overall performance - the raison d'être of the Martin trimotor attacker.

Peyton Magruder and the Martin Aircraft Company admitted defeat and left to others to sell the Air Corps on the unarmed bomber concept.

While they were developing the R-4360 they mocked up various configurations including:
5 row, left-hand spiral, 7 cylinders per row (R-2800 cylinders) = 35 cylinders 5,444 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 5 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 30 cylinders 4,671 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 6 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 36 cylinders 5,605 in3 disp.

Whoa, thanks for that Jon!  An R-5605 would be something to see  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 30, 2019, 11:12:38 AM
While they were developing the R-4360 they mocked up various configurations including:
5 row, left-hand spiral, 7 cylinders per row (R-2800 cylinders) = 35 cylinders 5,444 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 5 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 30 cylinders 4,671 in3 disp.
6 row, in-line, 6 cylinders per row (R-2180 cylinders) = 36 cylinders 5,605 in3 disp.

Whoa, thanks for that Jon!  An R-5605 would be something to see  :o
I think it'd be hard to see under all the ducting needed to cool the bugger.  ;D ;D :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 01, 2019, 07:29:39 AM
I think it'd be hard to see under all the ducting needed to cool the bugger.

 ;D  Hmmm, if the 1930s GB does go ahead, I think I'll work up a 4-row R-1830 derivative for wing-buried applications.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on December 01, 2019, 08:32:08 AM
;D  Hmmm, if the 1930s GB does go ahead, I think I'll work up a 4-row R-1830 derivative for wing-buried applications.

That's what this engine was designed for, it had a very small diameter, and you could add extra cylinder rows as needed, two rows at a time because there was a coupling connection between each two rows. Up to 42 cylinders IIRC.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 01, 2019, 12:55:57 PM
I wonder if Pratt & Whitney had something similar in mind?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 01, 2019, 04:38:21 PM
In the '30s they had the R-2060.
https://oldmachinepress.com/2019/10/20/pratt-whitney-r-2060-yellow-jacket-20-cylinder-engine/

Pratt also had the X-1800/XH-2600 and H-3130 'H' engines, the last actually bulkier than the
R-4360.

Various notions were explored in the Army hyper-engine program:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_engine

Early on the engines considered for burying within the wing, rather than fuselage,
tended to be opposed or H pancakes.
https://oldmachinepress.com/2018/04/20/lycoming-o-1230-flat-12-aircraft-engine/
https://oldmachinepress.com/2018/05/05/lycoming-xh-2470-24-cylinder-aircraft-engine/
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on December 01, 2019, 10:37:51 PM
The only Wright Tornado made still exists, it was restored and the book was written around it, IIRC. My copy I lent to someone, but right now I can't remember to who ---  :-X
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 03, 2020, 12:41:14 PM
So, obviously, I missed the U.S. Enters WWII Early (1940) GB deadline on this one ...  :-[

Lockheed's 'Big Twin' - the FM-4 PoleStar Long-range Fighter

Back in June 1936, Lockheed had submitted its Model 11 to meet the Air Corps' Specification X-604 for a multi-place fighter. Initially given the military designation XPB-3 (Experiment Pursuit, Biplace 3), the Model 11 had its origin in the Model 10D - a proposed military derivative of Lockheed's Electra airliner. But the Model 10 airframe was developed out of all recognition. The radial engines were swapped for Allison V-12, a tricycle gear adopted, the cockpit flanked by two powered turrets armed with 37 mm Browning T9 autocannons.

Under the Air Corps' points system, the Lockheed Model 11 - by then re-designated XFM-2 (Experiment  Fighter, Multiplace 2) - did well. Alas, the even-more-radical Bell XFM-1 Airacuda scored slightly better. Despite its high test scores, the Airacuda as built proved overly complex and prone to systems failures. In any case, the overall concept of the multi-place 'cruiser' fighter was waning in planning circles. Still, the United States mainland needed protection from long-range bombers. As a result, the Department of War had approved Specification X-608 for a 'Interceptor Pursuit (Twin-engine)'. This contest was won by 'Kelly' Johnson's ambitious Lockheed Model 22 which became the XP-38 Lightning.

Air Corps planners were still looking for an even longer-range 'Mid-Atlantic' interceptor. Internally, this requirement was referred to as a 'PB' (Pursuit, Biplace). However, when Specification X-610 was issued, it called for a 'Fighter, Multiplace (Twin-engine)' which was to be based on a proven airframe. In other words, the USAAC was looking for an improved 'FM' design. The X-610 requirements reflected a critique of the service trial Bell YFM-1 (and, by extension, the Lockheed XFM-2 concept). X-610 specified that barbettes and turrets were to be avoided in favour of a simpler fixed-gun main armament.

To meet Specification X-610, Bell submitted a simplified, tractor-engined Airacuda derivative. [1] In turn, Lockheed  submitted two 'Kelly' Johnson designs - the Model 22FM (based on the Lightning) and the larger Model 35 (which could be seen as a spin-off from the earlier Model 11/XFM-2). Both Lockheed submissions were intended as 2-seaters but the Model 35 had the option of a third crew member. Compared with the Model 22FM (and the earlier Model 11), the Model 35 was a conservative design - combining features of the Model 10 and the bigger Model 14 airliner airframes.

The Model 35 was, effectively, a higher-powered Model 10 Electra with a refined fuselage. The design approach reflected a critique of the earlier XFM-2 concept. A simpler fixed armament was specified by X-610 ... so the Model 11's bulky turrets disappeared. For the extended, over-water operations now envisioned for the 'FM' role, 'Kelly' Johnson decided to abandon the Model 11's Allison inlines - for fear of combat damage to vulnerable cooling systems. In place of the V-12s were bulkier but highly durable Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp radial engines.

At a glance, the Model 35 fuslage looked very similar to that of the Model 10 airliner. In fact, it was completely different - being of a nearly triangular section. This layout was adopted to provide plenty of room to the sides of the cockpit to position to specified twin fixed, forward-firing 37 mm Oldsmobile M4 autocannons. Above and forward of each cannon breech was mounted four .50-calibre heavy machine guns. A fifth .50-calibre was to be mounted as a remotely-fired 'sting' gun in the extreme tail.

Top The prototype Lockheed Model 35 as originally flown. Note the unfaired main undercarriage bays and small 'bubble' glazing for the observer/navigator. The windows let into the sides of the fuselage are to illuminate the 37 mm gun breeches - should the nav/obs need to clear blockages. This aircraft was actually unarmed (the visible tail 'sting' gun is a dummy barrel).

(To be continued ...)
_________________________

[1] This tractor-engined Airacuda development was never built. Nevertheless, Bell was assigned an Air Corps designation for its design - XFM-3.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on January 03, 2020, 11:33:33 PM
So-o, an American (Lockheed) Beaufighter equivalent. Neat! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 03, 2020, 11:42:09 PM
Interesting --- very interesting ------
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 04, 2020, 05:09:31 AM
So-o, an American (Lockheed) Beaufighter equivalent. Neat! :smiley:

I can only tip my hat to this kind of creativity!

Apophenia never fails to inspire and I especially like the Wright Field arrow.

What a masterful touch on a superlative concept!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 04, 2020, 07:48:19 AM
Beautiful!!  It looks to have plenty of capacity to evolve/develop for other missions; I daresay you'll show us some of that development.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2020, 09:26:08 AM
Thanks folks! First, to finish off the backstory for the above ...
___________________________________________________

Although not a component of Specification X-610, the prototype Lockheed Model 35 would be modified to carry a much larger cannon. In the late 1930s, the National Defense Research Committee's Division I (Ballistic Research) had been investigating the potential for larger guns mounted in aircraft. Emphasis was on mounting 75 mm field guns in medium bombers but the NDRC were also considering lighter guns. One possibility examined was adapting the 37 mm Gun M1 anti-aircraft gun to Lockheed's Model 35. Despite the similar calilbres with M1A2 AA gun was very different from the pair of 37 mm T9 autocannons planned for the Lockheed. Both guns fired essentially the same HE projectile but their relative performance was based on their widely differing cartridge cases.

The Model 35's planned aircraft guns used 37 x 145 mmR (rimmed) cartridge cases (fed from 30-round 'endless belt' magazines). By contrast, the M1A2 anti-aircraft gun used a much more powerful round - the larger, 37 x 223 mmSR (semi-rimmed) cartridge. The latter gave the 21 ounce shell a horizontal range of 8,850 yards. Seen as promising, the NDRC's 37 mm 'big gun' proposal was turned over to the Watervliet Arsenal for execution. Lockheed provided a Model 10 wing centre section to act as a mock-up for mount development. This was kept as simple as possible - basically being a welded steel bracket bracing the gun to the aircraft's spars. The gun's vertically-aligned box magazine would protrude into the cabin, allowing the navigator to insert fresh magazines. [1]

With the experimental T10 aircraft mount in place, the Lockheed mock-up was delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for test firing. In the meantime, the prototype Model 35 was being modified to test different configurations. Since the Air Corps had rejected Lockheed's proposed remotely-fired defensive armament, the first order of business was test-fitting a Martin cupola complete with .30-calibre Browning machine gun. That brought NX-35C towards FM-4B standards (although the fixed-gun armament was never installed). Next came the trial fitting of the airborne M1A2 cannon, turning the XFM-4A into a YFM-4C. All went well until the first aerial firing of the big gun. With the first round fired, the aircraft began shaking badly. A starboard propeller blade had been bent by the force of the muzzle blast.

Various remedies were suggested -  including developing a longer barrel or, more simply, adding an unrifled extension onto the existing L/54 (1.99 m) M1A2 barrel. Such were the urgencies of 1939 that neither potential solution was implemented. The Air Corps now had other plans for the Model 35 prototype...

Bottom (above) Despite its olive drab camouflage and Wright Field 'arrow', the prototype YFM-2C was returned to Lockheed for further modification before it ever worn full US national insignia. Note FM-4B changes - a dorsal Martin gun cupola and the more fully shrouded main undercarriage

The simple structure of the M1A2's T10 mount is shown on the right. In service, this mount and the gun body was to be covered by an aerodynamic 'canoe'.

(To be continued ...)

______________________________

[1] The M1A2 had a cyclic rates of fire of 120 rpm but, obviously, that was severely restricted by its 10-round clip.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 04, 2020, 09:34:30 AM
It was intended that prototype Model 35 be modified to full FM-2B standards. That entailed installing the complete forward-firing armament but, more radically, the Twin Wasps would be changed to more powerful Wright XR-2600-1 Cyclone 14 radials. To ensure propeller ground clearance, the Model 35's telescoping main undercarriage legs [1] were to be replaced by entirely new units (eliminating the need for telescoping). However, none of this ever happened. The Model 35 program was being outstripped by events in Europe ...

The service model Lockheed FM-4D retained the prototypes' R-1830 powerplants. The 'D had a standard fixed armament of four .50-calibre machine guns and two 37 mm Oldsmobile M4 autocannons with 30-round M6 'endless belt' magazines. [2] In the navigator's cupola, a flexible .30-calibre Browning provided defensive fire to the rear. All FM-4Bs were fitted with a single, centreline bomb rack which could accommodate a 1,000 lb AN/M65 general purpose bomb (although, a 500 lb AN-M43 or AN/M 64 GP was the more common payload).

Without the extra power anticipated from the Wright Double Cyclones, the FM-4D was not a sparkling performer but it was ready for long-range patrols long before the more sophisticated P-38 Lightning was available for active service.

The 27th Pursuit Squadron at Selfridge Field, MI, was chosen to operate the Lockheed FM-4D. Redesignated 27th Fighter Squadron (Twin Engine), the unit deployed as overseas detachments of the 1st Fighter Group. The first 'det' (I/27FS) deployed to occupied Iceland, providing long-range fighter cover from Reykjavík. The second 'det' deployed to the Allied-occupied Azore Islands. But II/27FS didn't stay at Lajes Field for long. US War Plan Gray had been extended to cover the occupation of Spain's Canary Islands. After flying top-cover for Operation Gray Mine, the II/27FS aircraft were re-assigned to the new USAAC base at Lanzarote Field. From there, the squadron moved on to North Africa.

Top Lockheed FM-4D of 2nd Detachment, 27th Fighter Squadron, Sedrata Airfield, eastern Algeria, February 1941. Some FMs in-theatre wore overcoats of water-based camouflage paint. This aircraft has its faded olive drab partially covered with 'liberated' tan and grey paints (or French and/or Italian origin). In March 1941, II/27FS moved up to Massicault Airfield in Tunisia for the assault on Sicily.

It had been intended that FM-4E torpedo-carriers should operate in mixed units with FM-4D fighters. That never happened. Rather than training Army pilots to drop torpedos, it was decided to transfer the FM-4Es to the Marine Corps. As Naval Aviators, USMC pilots were readily trained for their new role - and, in some cases, were already trained for torpedo dropping. Duly transferred, the FM-4Es were redesignated as TBL-1s. Despite this Quarter Masters' redesignating, these aircraft actually remained USAAC property ... and Marine Corps wags quickly dubbed them 'Lockheed Loanstarss'.

The TBL-1s were issued to a new Marine Composite Squadron 1 (VMC-1) formed at Marine Corps Auxiliary Airfield Atlantic, NC. Fitted with long-range tanks, the VMC-1 aircraft quickly deployed overseas. They initially performed armed maritime reconnaissance missions from Lajes Field on Terceira Island in the Azores. In early 1941, VMC-1 was moved to Médiouna Airfield in French Morocco in preparation for operations against the Spanish homeland. On Sunday, 09 March 1941, the Marines joined British torpedo-bombers in a joint attack on the Arsenal de la Carraca, near Cádiz (west of Gibraltar). Like other Allied attacks on Spanish military targets, [1] this operation was judged a success, but not for obvious reasons (more that anon).

After the Carraca raid, VMC-1 was refitted with new TBL-1s but these 'Loanstarss' were quickly passed on to America's French allies whose own equipment was wearing out. In French plans, Adm. François Darlan had hoped for Aéronavale Bloch MB.174s operating as land-based bombardiers-torpilleurs. That was never enacted and accepting VMC-1's aircraft into French service was a stop-gap measure. These aircraft operated alongside Aéronavale Bloch MB.176 recce aicraft (which were also powered with Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radials).

Bottom A newly-repainted Lockheed TBL-1 of the French Aéronavale. These aircraft operated throughout the Italian campaign. The survivors were returned to the Air Corps when French-built Bloch MB.175T torpedo-bombers became available at last.

Beyond the garish shark's mouth motif (inherited from the Marines), this aircraft was given the name mise-en-abîme ('put into the abyss'). This name was marked in white beneath the starboard cockpit sill.

_____________________________

[1] Most notable of these was the Fleet Air Arm attack on the Arsenal de Cartagena. US forces participated in other Spanish ventures. US Marines occupied the Tangier International Zone (which Spanish troops had taken on 14 June 1940). Air Corps' Lockheed FM-4Ds took part (as escorts) in the US bombing of Málaga airfield.

[2] A further six machine guns could theoretically be mounted in the outer wing panels. In practice, all FM-4s were fitted with long-range wing tanks instead
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 04, 2020, 10:18:21 AM
Those are some mighty fine permutations, apophenia!

The desert one is the cherry on top!

Well done.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on January 04, 2020, 07:20:37 PM
The FM-4 is quite innovative.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 09, 2020, 10:56:35 AM
I've made a series of posts in the Engineering Dept. section of Ideas & Inspiration. The title of my thread is Medium Air Tanker concept.

I see this as a potentially serious proposal and would love to hear people's feedback and criticism. Thanks in advance ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8932.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8932.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 09, 2020, 10:21:27 PM
I think you're right Stephen, the Dash-8's would make a good fire fighter. Only thing I see with your sketch, the Q-400 doesn't have that much ground clearance, but I would make the suggestion that they be equipped like the Coulson 737's, the tanks are in the cabin.

In this pic the two black spots under the fuselage that are in front and behind the wing, are the dump chutes (not the wheels though  ;) )
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 10, 2020, 01:04:42 AM
Thanks Robert. Yes, Coulson's Fireliner is an impressive bit of kit ... not sure about that name, though!

My Q-series preference would be for internal tanks as well. There's more up-front conversion costs but also much less added drag (a couple of fairings and drop hatches, basically, instead of that great midriff bulge).

One goal of my proposal was to try to catch the impetus of the current political pressure. That would mean getting government funding in place soon ... which favours a more 'proven' solution. Since Conair/Cascade's Q400-MR is the only Dash 8 air tanker conversion out there, I felt that I couldn't ignore it.

OT: I was impressed by the simplicity of Voyageur Aerotech's Dash 8-100PF  conversion approach. It is also clever from a business point-of-view.  The Voyageur Airways side of the operation already uses Dash 8s. And Voyageur is owned by Chorus Aviation which is now wondering what to do with all those trade-in Q100s and Q200s  ;D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on January 10, 2020, 01:10:47 AM
Use 1/72 Coulson C-130 decals?

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/UW0AAOSwPc9WvapY/s-l500.jpg)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-72-Coulson-C130Q-Hercules-Water-Bomber-Decals-for-Italeri-model/201522238813 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-72-Coulson-C130Q-Hercules-Water-Bomber-Decals-for-Italeri-model/201522238813)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 10, 2020, 01:59:02 AM
Thanks Robert. Yes, Coulson's Fireliner is an impressive bit of kit ... not sure about that name, though!

My Q-series preference would be for internal tanks as well. There's more up-front conversion costs but also much less added drag (a couple of fairings and drop hatches, basically, instead of that great midriff bulge).

One goal of my proposal was to try to catch the impetus of the current political pressure. That would mean getting government funding in place soon ... which favours a more 'proven' solution. Since Conair/Cascade's Q400-MR is the only Dash 8 air tanker conversion out there, I felt that I couldn't ignore it.

OT: I was impressed by the simplicity of Voyageur Aerotech's Dash 8-100PF  conversion approach. It is also clever from a business point-of-view.  The Voyageur Airways side of the operation already uses Dash 8s. And Voyageur is owned by Chorus Aviation which is now wondering what to do with all those trade-in Q100s and Q200s  ;D

Well, erm! I have to apologize Stephen, I made my comments not realizing there is an actual aircraft flying. I wonder what they did to get ground clearance  ---

So while googling it, I found photos of an Eriksson DC-9 water bomber ---  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 10, 2020, 03:31:32 AM
Use 1/72 Coulson C-130 decals?

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/UW0AAOSwPc9WvapY/s-l500.jpg)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-72-Coulson-C130Q-Hercules-Water-Bomber-Decals-for-Italeri-model/201522238813 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/1-72-Coulson-C130Q-Hercules-Water-Bomber-Decals-for-Italeri-model/201522238813)

Small world.  Guess who is my newest customer in the real world. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 10, 2020, 10:18:39 AM
Small world.  Guess who is my newest customer in the real world. ;)

Nice catch, Greg  :smiley:  Good people to be connected with!

If this isn't 'non-disclosure' territory, does your new gig have anything to do with NSW's new FireLiner?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 11, 2020, 03:30:00 AM
No.  The support at this stage is to their C-130s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 11, 2020, 05:34:55 AM
Interestingly, one of the headline photos in MSN news stories about the fires today,  had this C-130 in it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 12, 2020, 07:42:39 AM
No.  The support at this stage is to their C-130s.

Cool! And, I see, T134 has a new and completely different livery  :smiley:

I've now decided to rejig my Dash 8 scheme into a simpler concept aimed directly at Coulson ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on January 12, 2020, 08:29:18 AM
With the J model C-130 replacing the older ones are there E and H model Hercs available for firebombers?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 12, 2020, 10:57:49 AM
I just took a peek at this year's GB poll (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8916.0) and I think you're going to have an excellent opportunity to show some of your fantastic fire-fighting concepts, apophenia.

It's a treat to see you apply your limitless talent to these often over-looked types!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 13, 2020, 03:32:25 PM
With the J model C-130 replacing the older ones are there E and H model Hercs available for firebombers?

There are but, invariably, old Hercs need to have their centre wing boxes replacing (and the USAF just found ot that its newish 'J-models aren't immune from wing joint cracking either). Not sure how much that costs nowadays - it was around US$7M per aircraft about 5 years ago.

It's notable that -  after five years work on the project - the US Forest Service abandoned its plans to convert seven donated ex-Coast Guard HC-130Hs to air tankers. That said, Coulson just bought five ex-NorAF C-130Hs that were stored at Davis-Monthan ...

Brian Cheers! My fingers are crossed for a Fire fighting GB - currently near the top of the pack  :smiley:

I note that 40 members have voted so far. For those who haven't cast their ballots yet, it's too late to vote early so remember to vote often  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 15, 2020, 11:34:30 AM
Another stab at a Dash 8-based Common Medium Air Tanker. This time I've modelled the conversion on the Coulson RADS tanks (7,000 L total) for the Airbus C295W. The big difference, of course, is that the Dash 8 has no rear loading ramp. So, instead, this Q100 has first been converted into a package freighter.

The 'PF' conversion involves fitting cargo floor roller and a B/E Aerospace (Collins) large freight door. The Coulson RADS tanks would loaded through the freight door one at a time and slid forward to sit beneath the wing box. Retardant dump door would be permanently fitted (à la the Coulson C-130Q conversion) but the rest of the Air Tanker kit would be readily removable.

Otherwise, the basic Common Medium Air Tanker concept remains the same. Coulson RADS tanks could be exchanged between Australia, California, and Western Canada for use on local Dash 8 freighter/air tanker conversions.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 15, 2020, 04:37:07 PM
Wow is that a stunning fire-fighter!

Those work-horses are rarely beauty contest winners but this one gets the blood going as they say.

Most excellent, apophenia and once again, your rendering of those details is without peer.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 15, 2020, 11:31:23 PM
Stephen   :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I think that could lead to one of my Dash-8 kit's getting converted ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2020, 04:45:45 AM
Many thanks! Robert: I think this is 'do-able' in 1/1 scale as well. But perhaps not as I've laid it out above ...

The Coulson C295W system uses two retardant tanks listed at 3,500 litre (924 US gallon) each with a total of 6,050 litres (1,600 US gallons) ... (added: perhaps the 6.050L is the usable amount?) and why the 50L increase, I don't know.

The C295W has a cabin length of 12.70 m (41' 8"), while the Q200 cabin length is only 9.16 m (30' 1"). That shouldn't be an issue since the C295W cabin fitted with RADS is mainly empty. Weight is a whole 'nother matter, though.

I said in Reply #2430 that my Common Medium Air Tanker would carry two RADS tanks. Not counting tank weight, that 6,050L of fluid alone weighs ~13,350 lbs. But most sources put the Q200 payload at only 8,920 lbs (~1,070 US gallons) ... in other words, closer to a single C295W RADS tank ;P

On the other hand, the Q300 payload is listed as 13,500 lbs/6,124 kg (~1,615 US gallons), which is almost bang on for Coulson's C295W system. My question is: why the big payload difference between the Q200 and Q300? Some models of Q300 have an extra 100 shp per engine. Perhaps the increased payload applies only to those higher-powered models? If so, is 200 shp more really enough to make such a difference in payload?

Q300 cabin size is about the same as the C295. But, obviously, I am missing something here. I can't how adding a total of 400 shp and 3.43 m (11' 4") of extra fuselage weight results in a 4,580 lbs/2075 kg increase in payload   :icon_surprised:

Anyone got any theories?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 16, 2020, 07:10:54 AM
Wouldn't that be 7000L ?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 16, 2020, 10:49:19 AM
Wouldn't that be 7000L ?

Doh! Of course it would  :-[

But my question remains: Why the degree of difference in payload between Q200 and Q300?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2020, 11:21:18 AM
Inspired by this: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=653.msg164086#msg164086 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=653.msg164086#msg164086)

and this: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=653.msg164581#msg164581 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=653.msg164581#msg164581)

Here is a turretless Chinese People's Liberation Army M4A2 Sherman tank rebuilt as a tank destroyer and direct fire-support vehicle. The new main armament is a reclaimed Japanese Type 88 75 mm anti-aircraft gun (probably one with a damaged or sabotaged mount).

Able to out-range and out-perform National Army Shermans, the Type 88 fired a powerful 75 x 497 mmR round (as compared with the weaker US 75 x 350R round fired by Shermans).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 18, 2020, 03:16:11 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 18, 2020, 06:04:13 AM
That looks every bit the business, apophenia.

You have a rare talent for rendering armor.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 21, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Inspired by this: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723)

Would work? Dunno. Depends how snug the supercharger is to the front spar, I guess ...

BTW: I couldn't see a way to extend the tailplane à la the FG-2 Corsair so I gave her a new, broader tail fin and rudder.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on January 21, 2020, 01:20:30 PM
Inspired by this: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723[/url])

Would work? Dunno. Depends how snug the supercharger is to the front spar, I guess ...

BTW: I couldn't see a way to extend the tailplane à la the FG-2 Corsair so I gave her a new, broader tail fin and rudder.

Very nice!!  I wonder if the vertical fin and rudder might also need to be made taller?  Still, it would be an interesting model and I can see a 5-bladed prop being used to truly harness all that horsepower.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 22, 2020, 02:37:20 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 22, 2020, 05:45:35 AM
Inspired by this: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=805.msg164723#msg164723[/url])

Would work? Dunno. Depends how snug the supercharger is to the front spar, I guess ...

BTW: I couldn't see a way to extend the tailplane à la the FG-2 Corsair so I gave her a new, broader tail fin and rudder.


The overall length of the TSB1-G engine used in the F4U-1 WM test-bed was
96.75". The majority of the single-stage, variable speed supercharger versions
were in the range of 96.5 - 96.75".
The overall installed length of the R-2800-30W of the F8F-2 was 92.75".
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2020, 06:55:34 AM
Jon: Thanks for that. So the difference in engine length for the single-stage blower is only 4 inches! That's amazing.

Evan: You're probably right about increasing the height ofthe fin and rudder. Not a big deal since they'd be completely re-designing the vertical tailplane anyway.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 22, 2020, 08:26:24 AM
That's a nice stealth mod to the Bearcat. I had to look close to catch it.

Well done, apophenia! Yet another art work that could fool the "experts".

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 22, 2020, 09:58:52 AM
Maybe a contra-prop like they used on the Boeing F8B
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2020, 10:59:46 AM
Thanks folks! The XF8B-1's Aeroproducts AD7562-XB contra-prop and spinner would look great (and lessen potential tip speed problems).

I'm guessing there'd be weight gain up front though. So, maybe a longer rear fuselage to compensate?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 22, 2020, 02:51:14 PM
Thanks folks! The XF8B-1's Aeroproducts AD7562-XB contra-prop and spinner would look great (and lessen potential tip speed problems).

I'm guessing there'd be weight gain up front though. So, maybe a longer rear fuselage to compensate?

Weight delta between the R-2800 engined F4U-1 and the R-4360 engined F4U-1 WM was 1284 lbs.
Directly engine and installation related:
Engine + 866 lbs
Prop +200 lbs
Engine mounts/cowl etc. +115 lbs
Piping, fittings misc. + 64 lbs

Total 1245 lbs fwd of the firewall.

The numbers would be similar for the switch on the F8F.
 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on January 23, 2020, 12:17:31 AM


I'm guessing there'd be weight gain up front though. So, maybe a longer rear fuselage to compensate?

You could do the same what Supermarine did with the Spitfire Stephen. It's well documented the different total lengths of the various engine/prop powered Spitfires, the longest being 3 feet longer than the Mk.I. What is not well documented is the length of the fuselage from the engine bulkhead to the tail assembly joint never changed through it's whole production cycle (and for that matter, neither did the distance between the tail assembly joint and the rudder hinge line), and that includes all the Seafires, Spitefuls and Seafangs too. The difference in length is all accountable with what engine/prop was installed on the front and what rudder was installed on the fin.

Supermarine's solution to the weight problem was to have counter-weights installed in the space between Frame 18 and Frame 19 (the tail assembly joint frame). The most weight installed was over 200lbs. Information in the Morgan/Shacklady book has drawing diagrams of the counter-weight installation.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on January 23, 2020, 03:50:57 AM
Ballasting was a common solution to engine change issues, both lighter
and heavier engines. If it was possible to change the engine mount to
mount a lighter engine further forward, that was done, in some cases
that wasn't an option so the ballast would be added forward.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 23, 2020, 06:24:28 AM
Yep. For a carrier aircraft - with inherit stowage concerns - ballasting probably makes more sense than a longer airframe. Easier to whif too  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 25, 2020, 12:19:33 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-23/nsw-rfs-air-tanker-crashes-near-numeralla-bushfire/11893554)

For those who haven't heard, on 23 January, Coulson's Large Air Tanker N134CG was lost near Cooma, NSW, with its crew of crew. With the tragic crash of Tanker 134, I was hestitant to start throwing around what-if waterbomber concepts. However, in light of the urgency surrounding air tankers, I've decided to press on ,,,

All I'm really doing is illustration a concept already broached. The Hellenic Air Force is considering eliminating their Canadair CL-215 fleet for economic reasons. My proposal is that an Australian state (or states) make an offer to Athens for these aircraft and have them shipped to Oz for refurbishing and rebuild.

My notion was to upgrade the CL-215s to CL-415EAF (Enhanced Aerial Firefighter) standards using Viking Air kits delivered to Australia. To broaden the appeal/usefulness of these aircraft, I've shown the rebuild with CL-415 MP (Multi-Purpose) features - MSS antennae farm, etc. My thought was that whichever state took on the Canadairs could contract them (through Surveillance Australia?) for patrol/SAR work outside of fire season.

BTW: The rego VH-NSW belongs to the state government (currently NSW Department of Lands) and would have to be tranferred from their Cessna 421C (operated by Bathurst Aircraft Maintenance Centre).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on January 25, 2020, 04:08:03 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 27, 2020, 06:07:12 AM
Happy Australia Day to all!

Not a whif this time, but a tribute to the crew of Air Tanker 134...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on January 28, 2020, 04:09:05 AM
That's a very thoughtful tribute, apophenia.

A salute to the selfless brave who risk all for Australia.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 09, 2020, 03:17:08 AM
Inspired by this: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=129.msg166526#msg166526 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=129.msg166526#msg166526)

SAPAC-LL (Lockheed-Latécoère) L-246F Guerrier Étoilés

Avions Marcel Dassault submitted an upgraded version of its MD550 Mystère Delta, Britain's Fairey Aviation put forward a French-engined development of the Delta 2, Sweden offered its Saab J35 Draken, and US Lockheed submitted the F-104 Starfighter. Controversially, the latter was the chosen design to re-equip the Armée de l'Air. [1]

The variant chosen was the Lockheed-Latécoère Model L-246F powered by the French Atar 09B turbojet. [2] Other major French equipment was a main armament of a centreline-carried Matra R.530 IR or semi-active radar-homing missile and Thomson-CSF Cyrano I bis radar set. Once accepted for AdA service, the name Guerrier Étoilés (Star Warrior) was chosen for the new fighter (although, early on, Lockheed-Latécoère referred to the L-246F as the 'Lancier').

The Guerrier Étoilés' single Matra R.530 missile was backed up by two wing pylon-mounted AIM-9B Sidewinder short-range IR missiles for self-defence (these would be replaced from the mid-1970s by French-made Matra R.550 Magics) and a gun armament. For the Guerrier Étoilés IA and II, the gun was a 20 mm M612 'Vulcain' 6-barreled Gatling cannon, a licensed-built GE M61 Vulcan by Manurhin of Mulhouse-Bourtzwiller. These were replaced by twin 30 mm DEFA 552 guns on the '' IIIC and later production fighters. [3]

Below A Lockheed-Latécoère Guerrier Étoilés IIC of EC 2/13 'Alpes', BA 132 Colmar-Meyerheim, 1963

(To be continued ...)

_______________________________________

[1] Officialdom regarded both the MD550 and Saab J35 to be underdeveloped. A similar conclusion was drawn on the British submission - despite a research prototype having flown in 1954.

[2] The full corporate name was l'Société Anonyme de Production de l'Avion de Chasse - Lockheed-Latécoère (SAPAC-LL) representing the combined interests of the US Lockheed Aircraft Corporation and France's Groupe Latécoère.

[3] The M612 proved prone to misfeeds and ejected link caused damage. The USAF solved this problem by adopting the linkless M61A1, the Armée de l'Air preferred a domestic product.

BTW, the 'donor' profile was a CF-104 done by Lieuwe de Vries.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 09, 2020, 03:18:57 AM
SAPAC-LL (Lockheed-Latécoère) L-246FB Guerrier Étoilés

The Lockheed-Latécoère Guerrier Étoilés IIC fighters were backed up by small numbers of two-seat Guerrier Étoilés IIB operational trainers. [1] (These Atar-powered aircraft replaced J79-powered F-104B trainers on loan from the USAF.) Unlike the single-seat Guerrier Étoilés IICs which were built entirely at Toulouse-Montredon, the two-seat cockpit sections of the IIBs were supplied by the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation.

In part, attention drawn to the imported 2-seat cockpit sections would lead to a scandal known as L'accord du siècle (or 'Deal of the Century'). Evidence given by Lockheed lobbyists at a US Senate inquiry revealed that the corporation had bribed foreign officials into accepting F-104 purchases. This led to a French contract review by the OEAP (l'Observatoire économique de la commande publique). [2] The OEAP investigations cleared former ministre de la Défense. No investigation was made of the follow-on ministre de la Défense nationale, Charles de Gaulle. [3]

Although no charges were ever laid relating to L'accord du siècle, Lockheed's reputation never really recovered in France. When, in 1966, the Armée de l'Air opened a competition for a new avion de combat multirôle (ACM), the Lockheed-Latécoère candidate was quickly eliminated. That contest would be won by the Dassault Mirage IIIE, a type which would eventually eclipse all Guerrier Étoilés aircraft in French service. By 1971, the last Guerrier Étoilés had been donated to Greece as a part of NATO aid to

Below A dual-control Lockheed-Latécoère Guerrier Étoilés IIB of EC 3/2 'Alsace' 2 ème EC, based at BA 102 Dijon-Longvic, September 1967. Note that this aircraft carries a captive AIM-9B Sidewinder on its centreline pylon as a training stand-in for the IR-guided version of the Matra R.530 missile.

_______________________________________

[1] The Guerrier Étoilés IIB trainer followed the IIC fighter into service. The designations were not sequential but, rather, the suffix letters indicated role - 'C' for chasse (fighter) and 'B' for biplace (2-seat) as in biplace d'entraînement.

[2] The OEAP, working alongside the DAJ (Direction des Affaires Juridiques), reported directly to 'Bercy', l' Ministère de l'Économie et des Finances.

[3] Jacques Chaban-Delmas served as minister from Nov 1957 to May 1958. Pierre de Chevigné then held the post for half a month but had no involvement with the 'Lockheed' file. Charles de Gaulle was ministre de la Défense nationale from June 1958 to Jan 1959. However, the OEAP was understandably reluctant to launch an investigation into the activities of le président de la république!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on March 09, 2020, 03:51:28 AM
These are beautiful!  :-* Interesting just how much the different radome changes the look.

The Swedish proposal also sounds interesting. 8) Also in the long run regarding possible French-Swedish cooperation in defence matters.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 09, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
These are beautiful!  :-* Interesting just how much the different radome changes the look.

Indeed and those Starfighters sure look magnifique in those colors too!

The rudder stripes and masterful rendering of NMF bring it all together beautifully.

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 09, 2020, 03:56:07 AM
Exactly what Moritz has stated above.  The switch to the Mirage III radome makes a real difference on the F-104 design. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: dams301 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:02 AM
Love your interpretation with the backstory  :-*

The Cyrano nose looks really good  8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 10, 2020, 09:11:07 AM
Thanks folks. I was pleased with the retouches but, to my eye, the SAPAC-LL Guerrier Étoilés loses some of the appeal of the original Starfighter. Somehow the J79 exhaust gave the F-104 a perky look and the French Cyrano radome makes the front end a bit stumpy

This time, inspired by the Extended Spanish Civil War GB, I'm playing with MiG-3s ...

Чтобы улучшить породу ...

The production MiG-3 was an improvement over the MiG-1 but there was room for improvement. And Artem  Mikoyan and MI Gurevich were well aware of the fate of failed aircraft designers in Stalin's USSR. The first scheme - the MiG-5 - introduced a new, one-piece wooden wing. [1] To improve reliability, the troublesome Mikulin AM-35A was to be replaced with the new and more powerful Mikulin AM-37. A second scheme involved replacing the AM-35A with a Klimov V-12.

With a rating of 1,050 hp, the candidate Klimov M-105P engine was much less powerful. However, the M-105P was also significantly smaller than the Mikulin V-12, the AM-35A also weighing 565 lbs more than the Klimov. This scheme - dubbed MiG-3-105P - was then combined with the new wing for the proposed MiG-5 design. The result was the MiG-7 which Mikoyan and Gurevich presented as an improved, lightweight version of the MiG-3. In fact, the MiG-7 represented a fairly extensive redesign.

The thrustline was considerably raised. It was already higher in the M-105 but the smaller Klimov engine block also sat higher in the fuselage than the AM-35A. However, that provided space for a coolant radiator positioned beneath the engine rather than slung beneath the rear fuselage. The result was better weight distribution and reduced drag. [2] The lighter weight engine also allowed armament to be increased. The rifle-calibre guns were eliminated, 12.7 mm Berezin UBs doubled, and a 20 mm ShVAK motor-cannon added.

Bottom A MiG-7 series I of the 177th Fighter Aviation Regiment, PVO. 'White 59' wears the standard factory scheme. This consisted of a pale version of AMT-7 blue undersides with upper surfaces of AII medium green and dark green (here showing a distinctly brownish tone).

Top A MiG-7 series IA distinguished by a third 12.7 mm Berezin firing through the propeller hub. [3]. Captured by the Luftwaffe, this MiG-7 has been repainted for delivery to RLM Erprobungstelle at Rechlin. The original scheme shows the colour variations apparent in Soviet laquer aircraft paints. The VVS markings have been overpainted in RLM 71 Dunkelgrün. Large recognition panels have been added in RLM 04 Gelb along with German national markings.

______________________________

[1] This new wing retained the MiG-3's Clark YH profile but eliminated the 'flat' centre section. The MiG-5 designation would later be reassigned to the twin-engined Mikoyan-Gurevich DIS (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya) long-range fighter.

[2] It was also believed that shorter coolant pipe lines would serve to lessen vulnerability to battle damage.

[3] This work-round was dictated by temporary supply shortages of cannons. The MiG-7 series II was to restore the ShVAK cannon but the Ukrainian assembly factory being overrun by the Wehrmacht thwarted those plans.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 11, 2020, 06:35:41 AM
I like your MiG 7s and especially the over-painting of the markings on the captured version.

This aircraft seems ripe for "the treatment" so it was a delight to see your excellent permutations, apophenia!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 11, 2020, 12:47:17 PM
Love your MiGs.  Perhaps a later update/rebuild of the SAPAC-LL Guerrier Étoilés will use Mirage F.1 radomes and ATAR 9K50 engines?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 12, 2020, 04:00:50 AM
Love your MiGs.  Perhaps a later update/rebuild of the SAPAC-LL Guerrier Étoilés will use Mirage F.1 radomes and ATAR 9K50 engines?

That would make sense. I had the Guerrier Étoilés going to Greece as MAP aid.  So, yeah, ... 9K50s and Cyrano IVs to match the Hellenic AF's  Mirage F1CG fleet  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 12, 2020, 09:41:21 AM
Love your MiGs.  Perhaps a later update/rebuild of the SAPAC-LL Guerrier Étoilés will use Mirage F.1 radomes and ATAR 9K50 engines?

That would make sense. I had the Guerrier Étoilés going to Greece as MAP aid.  So, yeah, ... 9K50s and Cyrano IVs to match the Hellenic AF's  Mirage F1CG fleet  :smiley:
That does cry out for a profile or two.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 14, 2020, 04:39:04 AM
That does cry out for a profile or two.

As a part of NATO aid, France donated its fleet of Guerrier Étoilés fighters to Greece in 1970-1971. There, they first joined the Hellenic Air Force's 114 Combat Wing Starfighters (which had been provided to Greece under MAP since 1964). Commonality issues with the F-104s  were, in part, solved by issuing the French fighters to two new squadrons - 331 and 332 Mira (both at Tanagra AB northwest of Athens).

The donated Guerrier Étoilés had all been upgraded to IIE standards (ie: Guerrier Étoilés IICs rebuilt with uprated Atar 9K-50 engines and Cyrano IV radar sets. Despite going directly from dépôts de réparation to Greece, the upgraded fighters were redesignated Guerrier Étoilés IIEG (for Grèce). While 331 and 332 Miras were working up, one flight of '' IIEGs went to the 347 Mira, a new attack squadron at Nea Anchialos AB.

Top Hellenic Air Force Guerrier Étoilés IIEG of 347 Mira at Nea Anchialos AB in mid 1974. This aircraft is fitted with a practice bomb dispenser on it centreline pylon and has a US-style IFR probe mounted. Note early-style individual aircraft number on the rear fuselage.

The '' IIEGs' service with the 347 Mira was short-lived. It was quickly realized that the aircraft was far from an ideal fighter-bomber and the type was replaced in 1975 by LTV A-7H Corsairs. The former 347 Mira aircraft were then divided between 331 and 332 Miras or became advanced trainers at the HAF Academy at Dekelia AB (in Tatoi).

Bottom A Guerrier Étoilés IIEG of 332 Mira 'Geraki' (Hawk) at Tanagra AB (northwest of Athens). This aircraft wears a special airshow scheme on its tail and a large 332 badge under its cockpit. Despite the airshow 'finery', '221' still carries a Matra R.530 on its belly pylon.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 14, 2020, 04:49:50 AM
I forgot to mention my bits in the Extended Spanish Civil War GB/Alt. Spanish Civil War GB:

Last Aid from the Luftwaffe
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9033.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9033.0)

Spanish Yak Fighters
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9038.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9038.0)

Spanish Republican MiGs
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9040.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9040.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 15, 2020, 11:29:51 AM
Operation Henchman - The Canadian 'Mistel' Programme

In concept, the RCAF's Operation Henchman dated back to the immediate postwar years - obviously inspired by wartime German experiences with Mistel pick-a-back combinations. The original concept for 'Henchman' was a pairing of Mitchell and Mustang acting as what became known in RCAF parlance as the 'mount' and 'jockey', respectively. The proposed pairing quickly changed - first substituting a Lancaster 10 'mount' and, later, a Vampire F.3 'jockey'.

Operation Henchman moved into a hardware phase in mid-1948 when an English Electric-built Vampire F.3 (17007) was trial-mounted on the back of a Lancaster 10U (FM224) at the Winter Experimental Establishment at RCAF Station Namao, Alberta. [1] In early October 1948, some 'captive' flight testing was undertaken with the unmanned Vampire 17007 (with flight control retained by FM 224). In late November 1948, flight tests with the fighter piloted and jet engine running commenced at Namao. A second Vampire, 17044, was modified to allow 'live' separations during the summer of 1950. However, RCAF plans were shifting and Operation Henchman went into a hiatus as all further experiments with Vampires were shelved. [2]

In 1952, the Director-General of Air Research ordered that pick-a-back experiments be resumed with the explicit goal of providing experience with stand-off weapons. Lancaster FM224 was upgraded to 10XH standard with a new, more streamlined pylon on its back. The new 'jockey' component would be a Lockheed T-33 (14679 or 14691) modified into a single-seater. [3] This new combination was test fitted at the Central Experimental and Proving Establishment in July 1954. [4] 'Captive' flight trials began in late September with T-33 14691 on top. Over the Winter of 1954-1955, preparations were made for the first 'live' separation of 'jockey' and 'mount'.

For this 'live' release, a new 'mount' was created from Lancaster 10AP KB976 (recently repaired after receiving Category B damage in a hard landing). As Lancaster 10XH (02), KB976 was stripped of much of its internal equipment. Its pilot's canopy was removed and the cockpit skinned over, replaced by a small 'bubble' canopy. [5] In late April 1955, KB976 made its first successful 'live' release of 'jockey' T-33 14679. This was followed by further 'captive' test flying with 'jockey' 14691 in control.

The final mission for KB976 came on 12 September 1955. Flying from RCAF Station Comox, the Henchman pair circled over Georgia Strait before heading across Vancouver Island. Flying in escort were a standard T-33 and a pair of Avro CF-100 Canucks from 409 AW (F) Squadron. As planned, KB976's pilot and nav bailed out over Flores Island where a Sikorsky HO4S-2 helicopter (55320) of RCN HU-21 was on station. [6] Some 20 miles out over the Pacific, the separation process was begun - with 'jockey' 14679 accelerating and climbing slightly prior to release. The escorting 'Night Hawk' T-33 squawked 'freeload' to inform Comox of a clean separation.

To this point, everything had gone perfectly for the Operation Henchman's first simulated operational mission. But it quickly became apparent that the 'mount' was not functioning according to plan. One minute after separation, the Lancaster autopilot was meant to push KB976 into a terminal dive. Instead, the Lanc seemed intent upon pressing on towards Japan! Of course, such a malfunction was why the CF-100s accompanied the flight. After two quick firing passes, the 'Clunks' had shot out two of KB976's engines and the flaming Lancaster was headed for a watery end.

The boffins from the Central Experimental and Proving Establishment regarded their simulated operational mission as a near complete success. The final problem, it was thought, could easily be avoided by installing a second autopilot for redundancy. In any case, the autopilot was unrelated to the targeting system which would be employed of genuine operation missions. The Director-General of Air Research was less easily impressed. While the inevitable questions arose about autopilot and targeting system reliability, the bigger issue for the DGAR was what specific operational requirement could be satisfied with remote-controlled bombers whose airframes were now more than a decade old.

(To be continued ...)

_____________________________

[1] The project was actually under the control of the Experimental and Proving Establishment at RCAF Station Ottawa (Rockcliffe), assisted by the RCAF (National Research Council) Unit at Arnprior, Ontario. However, the W.E.E. at Namao was better equipped to do the conversion work in its 'off season'.

[2] This was in anticipation of 1951 replacement of Vampires in frontline RCAF service by the new Canadair-built Sabre swept-wing fighter.

[3] The new, shorten canopy provided space on the c/g for lifting lugs (allowing the T-33 to be hoisted into position over the Lancaster's dorsal mounting pylon). Although this mod resembled the canopy of the earlier Lockheed F-80 fighter, the 'T-33J' canopy was hinged at the rear (rather than sliding).

[4] The Central Experimental and Proving Establishment had been formed through the amalgamation of the Winter Experimental Establishment, E&PE Rockcliffe, and the RCAF (National Research Council) Unit.

[5] On planned operational missions, direct control of the 'mount' was needed only during take-off. Control would then be assumed by the 'jockey' aircraft, after which the Lanc pilot and navigator would bail out.

[6] Further out to sea, the formation was shadowed by a Canso SAR flying boat from 121 Composite Unit from RCAF Station Sea Island.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 15, 2020, 01:01:57 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on March 15, 2020, 04:16:08 PM

quite convincing, and quite surprising   :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on March 15, 2020, 07:14:13 PM
Interesting concept. Looking forward to the TBC.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on March 15, 2020, 09:43:13 PM
What about something along these lines Stephen
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on March 16, 2020, 02:53:13 AM
Marvellous and got me thinking to ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 16, 2020, 03:58:33 AM
Oh that's nice and I really like the sole bubble on top for the pilot!

Few things are more fun than torturing the fictional flight crew.

Unless it's torturing the imaginary ground crew.

Well done and most beautifully rendered!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 16, 2020, 04:09:29 AM
Thanks folks. I haven't worked out the details completely but the tbc Operation Henchman will be jumping forward in time. And I'll try to make the backstory a little more terse  :P

Robert: Not this time ... but that Lancaster mailplane project has to get done!

Small brown dog: Do tell!  ;D

Brian: On fictional characters, as Blackadder's Lord Melchett said: "As private parts to the gods are we: they play with us for their sport!"
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on March 16, 2020, 05:05:12 AM
Off to a great start with this Appophenia!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 16, 2020, 09:22:04 AM
Most intriguing story and beautiful rendering; looking forward to more.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 29, 2020, 10:52:23 AM
Inspired by Robin's One Wing Biplanes: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9060.30 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9060.30)

Restored to Glory - The Sopwith Hound 'One-Wing Biplane' is Being Reborn

The last surviving Sopwith Hound is now being restored back to airworthy condition. If the restoration remains on schedule, the reborn aircraft will resume its flying career after a hiatus of almost exactly one hundred years. For those who are unfamiliar with the type, the Sopwith Hound was an intermediate type between the better-known [/i]Pup[/i] and Camel biplane fighters.

Like all production Hounds, D4198 was built by Whitehead Aircraft Ltd at their Richmond, Surrey works. [1] A late production aircraft, D4198 went first to No. 3 (Naval) Squadron RNAS based near Dunkirk. In July 1917, No. 3 began receiving new Sopwith Camel biplanes and the Hounds were withdrawn. Surplus to naval requirements, most of the RNAS Hounds were transferred to the Royal Flying Corps for training purposes - many being converted into dual-control two-seaters.

The fortunes of Hound D4198 were different. In a sense, she maintained her naval heritage. Assigned to No. 112 (Home Defence) Squadron, RFC, at Throwley in Kent. Although No. 112 was part of the London Air Defence Area forced intended for intercepting German heavy bombers, the Hounds also routinely engaged German seaplanes operating off the coast. After the Armistice, many Hounds were sold off to civilian interests. Most were converted into two-seat tourers, a fate D4198 avoided.

Top Sopwith Hound D4198 as it appeared as a civilian-operated aircraft in 1921. Note the new plating on the forward upper decking and faired turn-over pylon. New fabric covering has eliminated the service tail stripes but the roundel is retained (it seems that D4198 never had a civil 'G' aircraft registration applied).

The civilian career of D4198 was fairly brief. At the 1922 Aerial Derby over Hendon, the Hound 'turned turtle' on landing. Pilot, Lester Forestier-Walker, was unharmed - thanks to a recently installed turn-over pylon - but the Hound was considered a write-off. The remains of D4198 were collected and stored on her owner's property in Dorset. Post-crash plans to rebuild the airframe never came to fruition and the Hound's components were left disassembled in the dry loft of that Dorset barn for almost 90 years. In 2009, the remains of D4198 were sold to a warbird collector for daunting task of restoration.

The first order of business was cataloguing all of the preserved components and assessing their conditions. The original 80 hp Le Rhône 9C rotary engine had long since disappeared and a replacement was needed. The wooden components had mostly survived but the wing panels - having been stored in the rafters - had suffered most from the years. The fuselage and tailplane was judged restorable but new wings were required. With a substantial amount of work needed, progress on the Hound restoration has been slow.

By 2016, a restored Le Rhône 9C rotary engine [2] had been received back from Skysport Engineering and a set of restored cowling metal and a period propeller have been sourced to replace missing items. A replica Vickers aircraft gun has also been procured - the plan being to restore D4198 in its full wartime glory. Meanwhile, work is underway on a set of replacement wing panels is underway in a hangar at Tarrant Rushton. [3] As many original wing fittings as practical are being refurbished for installation on the new wing panels. It is expected that D4198 restoration work will be fully complete by 2022. Then, we will witness the first airworthy Sopwith Hound to fly for a century.

Bottom The still-incomplete Sopwith Hound D4198 restoration rolled out of its hangar at Tarrant Rushton in the Summer of 2019. Note the 'dummy' machine gun (connected to period Scarff-Dybovsky synchronization gear) and reconditioned replacement front-end sheet metal. The 'new' cowling (thought to come from a [/i]Pup[/i]) has had reinforcing strips added to it at some point.
____________________

[1] Having already license-built over 700 Sopwith Pups, Whitehead Aircraft was a natural choice to produce the Sopwith Hound.

[2] This rotary is actually a derated Le Rhône 9Ja - one of 953 built by W.H. Allen Son & Co. of Bedford - which originally powered an RAF Avro 504K biplane trainer.

[3] The hangars at newly re-opened Tarrant Rushton airfield were occupied by Flight Refuelling until that firm's move to Hurn in the late 1970s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on March 29, 2020, 05:18:04 PM
XLNT !! I love it . . .
Just one thing, though, as built, a production Hound would have been fitted with a 100 / 130hp Clerget 9b engine, rather than the Gnome ( Sopwith Triplane engine and cowling,  in real life ) . . .   ;)


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on March 29, 2020, 05:59:34 PM
This got me wondering about adding something similar in my universe as the first Hound incarnation although, owing to power requirements, it would have failed.  Perhaps a late war/post war test bed or something which would have to be making use of EMFEM tech as no ELG is available as yet. The folding of Sopwith /creation of Hawkers would have been another reason to abandon it. Could be fun to muck about with.

Nicely done by the way :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Brian da Basher on March 29, 2020, 06:10:25 PM
It's always a treat to see your latest artwork, apophenia!

I like how you kept the original flavor of the Sopwith Pup yet modernized it by making it a monoplane.

Your clear doped linen is rendered as expertly as your fine natural metal finishes!

Just wonderful!

Brian da Basher
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 30, 2020, 02:09:12 AM
Thanks folks.

Just one thing, though, as built, a production Hound would have been fitted with a 100 / 130hp Clerget 9b engine, rather than the Gnome ...

Always a challenge when one starts splashing about in totally unfamiliar waters  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on March 30, 2020, 05:25:25 AM
Hey, no worries, we can retcon things by stating that once the Hounds were withdrawn from the front line, their engines were removed for re-use in Camels, and substituted for 80hp Gnomes . . .


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 31, 2020, 03:32:47 AM
Cheers Robin. And that is the wonder of whiffery ... there's always a plausible AltHist work round  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2020, 04:18:21 AM
Over on Secret Projects there was a thread speculating about Sea Kings for all branches of the Canadian Forces. So ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 09, 2020, 04:21:23 AM
Over on Secret Projects there was a thread speculating about Sea Kings for all branches of the Canadian Forces. So ...
Makes you wonder why that particular version was not acquired in larger numbers than the few that were.  Great to see in Canadian markings!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2020, 04:29:55 AM
Makes you wonder why that particular version was not acquired in larger numbers than the few that were...

Good question Jeffry. Plenty in Italian service but it always seemed odd that - even with exposure to the USAF Jolly Green Giants in Vietnam - US Army Aviation showed no interest in the S-61R. Maybe seen as redundant with the Chinook in play?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 10, 2020, 02:02:56 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 10, 2020, 03:00:29 AM
The thin wing of the Hound would have required external bracing and wires,
there's no way it could fly without a support structure.

Maybe something DH.53 Hummingbird style, or Travel Air R?

(http://www.airmuseumsuk.org/airshow/2003/Shut030907/1024/images/270%20De%20Havilland%20DH.53%20Humming%20Bird.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on April 10, 2020, 04:51:13 AM
Oh Damn !! I knew there was something I'd forgotten . . .   :(    :-[
Had One Wing Biplanes like the Hound really existed, they would have had wire bracing, from the top longerons to the wing, then down to the undercarriage. Have a look at the Boeing Peashooter for the idea. I did try building some models with struts as you've suggested, but they ended up being as fiddly as building the biplanes in the first place, so I didn't bother . . . and any way, this is Whiff World, and anything is possible . . .


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2020, 01:29:28 AM
Another one to look at for bracing guidance would be something such as the Ryan ST family:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Schaffen_Ryan_ST-3KR_01.JPG/1600px-Schaffen_Ryan_ST-3KR_01.JPG)
(https://www.pilotweb.aero/polopoly_fs/1.4641932!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg)
(https://www.eaa.org/~/media/images/news/av%202018/saturday%207-28-2018/7-28-18-960-ryankit-2.jpg)
(https://www.eaa.org/~/media/images/news/av%202018/saturday%207-28-2018/7-28-18-960-ryankit-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2020, 11:53:37 AM
I like the Ryan ST approach of struts and wires - belt and braces  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 14, 2020, 01:54:18 AM
Travel Air R is similar with two struts.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/5321/9628799967_82d53a5f15_b.jpg)


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 14, 2020, 04:04:59 AM
Travel Air R is similar with two struts.

Very much so. Nice  :smiley:  I note that, in both cases, the struts tie in with undercarriage legs. Clever.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 16, 2020, 03:39:59 AM
Back in December last year, the the-roast mounted two WW2 Ecuadorian aircraft - an early series Fiat G.50 and a Blenheim Mk.I. http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8689.msg163109#msg163109 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8689.msg163109#msg163109)

The concept was too good not to steal ... so here's my take on the FAE Blenheims (called Busardo locally). Backstory to follow.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 16, 2020, 03:47:13 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 16, 2020, 08:52:04 AM
As promised, the backstory for those Ecuadorian Blenheims ...

Latin Blenheims - The Busardos of the Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana

In 1938, Ecuador ordered new warplanes from Great Britain. In the early 1930s, this small South American country had shifted its preference from Italian- to US-made aircraft (ordering almost exclusively from Curtiss-Wright). In 1937, a second Italian aviation mission came to Ecuador. This resulted in the first combat aircraft order in some time - for eight IMAM Ro.37 [1] 2-seat reconnaissance-bomber biplanes powered by 560 hp Piaggio P.IX radial engines. Meanwhile, relations between Ecuador and the United States had begun to turn frosty.

In 1937, the government of Ecuador granted a large oil concession in the eastern, Amazonian part of the country. A subsidiary of Standard Oil of New Jersey (Jersey Standard or Esso) was in the running but, instead, the concession was granted to the British-Dutch oil company, Royal Dutch Shell plc. In early 1938, a British aviation mission arrived in Quito - with Airspeed (1934) Limited representing the interests of Dutch aircraft maker, Fokker. This resulted in firm orders for multiple aircraft types at very good terms. From the Dutch was ordered three Fokker T.VIII twin-float recce/torpedo bombers - a type which had yet to fly. [2] From the British, aircraft orders included no less than five airframe types.

The British types ordered were: 2 x Airspeed general crew trainers; 3 x Avro patrol/recce-bombers; 6 x Hawker recce-bombers; 12 x Gloster biplane fighters; and 6 x Bristol medium bombers. Of the latter - the Bristol 142ME Busardo (Buzzard) - the first three airframes arrived by sea in Ecuador in August 1939. Assembled in Guayaquil by seconded Bristol technicians, the model 142ME aircraft were all ex-RAF Blenheim Mk.Is with no changes to their onboard equipment. The second airframe shipment arrived in early October 1939 but the Ecuadorian side of re-assembly work had moved at a very leisurely pace. It was not until early 1940 that the 142ME Busardo fleet achieved full operational capability with the Escuadrillas de Bombarderos of Ala de Combate 14 and 16 of the Fuerza Aérea del Ejército Equatoriana (FAEE), as it was then. [3]

Although the British government was keen to develop a Pacific Ocean ally in Ecuador, wartime conditions made it all but impossible for the UK to properly support the Busardos. Over time, emergency modifications began to be made to keep the bomber fleet airborne. In some cases, Hawker Harpías were robbed of their 825 hp Mercury VIIIA radial for use as Busardo replacement engines. [4] Eventually, some Busardos were also robbed of some equipment to keep aircraft based close to the borders with Perú in top condition.

Top Bristol 142ME Busardo IA of Escuadrilla de Bombarderos, Ala de Combate 16, based at Base Aérea (BA) Portoviejo near the Pacific coast. Despite the 'Bombarderos' in the title, this unit primarily flew coastal patrol missions during the 'guerra del 41'.

The 'IA' designation suffix denoted an aircraft re-engined with Mercury VIIIA engines. This aircraft has been fitted with open dorsal position (freeing up its gun turret as spares for the bomber fleet). Note the Vickers GO nose gun fitted for maritime strafing. It would appear that '231' has also been robbed of its wireless set (the mast is still in place but is not strung with antenna wire).

In early 1941, an unexpected delivery of spares from Italy helped with the Fuerza Aérea Equatoriana's ongoing supply problems. As a result, a momentous decision was made. Most of the bomber fleet would be rebuilt to Busardo II standards with Italian engines. The twin-row, 870 hp Fiat A.74 radials were of smaller diameter than the original Mercurys which provided a bit more side view from the cockpit. But the Italian engines also weighed over 550 lbs more than a pair of Mercurys. In light of availability, this was seen as an acceptable trade-off and internal equipment could be shifted to re-establish the airframe's centre of gravity.

Bottom Bristol 142MF Busardo II of Escuadrilla de Bombarderos, Ala de Combate 14, based at BA in the Azuay highlands, late July 1941. Aircraft '215' was one of three Busardos brought up to model 142MF standards by the outbreak of the Guerra perúano-ecuatoriana. Note the 'gun troughs' in the Fiat cowlings.

The engines, cowlings, motor-mounts, etc. on the Busardo IIs had been intended for Fiat G.50bis fighters which were never delivered. As such, the slots in their cowlings for that fighter's synchronized gun armament. In one official photograph of the Busardo II prototype conversion, some wag propped muzzle flash suppressors from Breda-SAFAT machine guns in those gun troughs. Somehow this was taken seriously by the Perúvian air arm's Oficina de inteligencia - the OI-CAP. For the duration of the 1941-42 conflict, fighter pilots of the Cuerpo Aeronáutico del Perú were advised to avoid attacking the 'Busardo F' from the front to avoid this bomber's formidable 4-gun forward defensive armament!

(To be continued ...)
_____________________

[1] Invariably, these biplanes were referred to as 'Alfa Romeos' in Ecuador - the Naples-based Officine Ferroviarie Meridionali being owned by Nicola Romeo.

[2] The T.VIII W/E was to be essentially similar to the Netherland's T.VIII W/G but powered by the Bristol Mercury VIII engines akin to those intended for the enlarged T.VIII W/C model. Enquiries were also made about the Fokker G.1 heavy fighter but no order was placed.

[3] The Fuerza Aérea del Ejército Equatoriana (FAEE) was renamed Fuerza Aérea Equatoriana (FAE) in 1940.

[4] In most instances, the drop in horsepower from the Busardo's 840 hp Mercury VIIIs went unnoticed. Nevertheless, attempts were made to base the VIIIA-powered aircraft along the coastal plain rather than up in the eastern highlands.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 17, 2020, 02:26:55 AM
 :smiley:

Maybe a whiff within a whiff could be a Ecuadorian CR.42... ;)

I can also see an interesting spin on the Ecuadorian–Peruvian War of 1941 coming.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Hardrada55 on April 18, 2020, 05:04:37 AM
Buy the Ecuadorians some tanks!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 19, 2020, 09:58:58 AM
Maybe a whiff within a whiff could be a Ecuadorian CR.42...

More Italian stuff coming soon  ;)
_________________________________

With the outbreak of WW2 imminent, there were to be a series of aircraft-delivery disappointments for the Fuerza Aérea del Ejército Equatoriana (FAEE). Most serious was that of the Gloster SS.37E Gavilán (Sparrowhawk) fighters. At the last moment, Whitehall chose to redirect these Gladiator biplanes towards China's KMT government in Chungking. [1] Neither of the Airspeed AS.5DC Azor crew trainers were delivered and only one of the three Avro 652E Aninga patrol and reconaissance-bombers ordered arrived in Ecuador (RAF deliveries having priority).

Likewise, despite some deposits paid, options on British aircraft could not be exercised after September 1939. That eliminated the possibility of any Ecuadorian Miles M.2X Hawk Trainers (meant to supplement the aging Curtiss-Wright CW-16E fleet). There had also been a November 1938 'expression of interest' in the Blackburn B-24E (Ecuador) divebomber. However, no contracts were ever signed for this Mercury-powered equivalent to the Skua Mk.I prototypes. [2] Informal negotiations had also been underway to procure torpedo bombers from the UK - Britain had offered the Fairey Swordfish or ex-RAF Vickers Vildebeests but the FAEE wasn't interested in either of these seemingly obsolete biplanes.

The first six Hawker Harpía recce-bombers did arrive to supplement the 'Alfa Romeo' fleet. The Harpía biplanes were actually ex-RAF Hawker Hart Mk.Is rebuilt with radial engines. The Harpías were powered by the same Mercury VIIIA engines intended for the Gavilán fighters. These engines were fitted to refurbished, ex-RAF Harts stripped of their Kestrel IB V-12s and fitted with the same motor mounts as that of Hawker's Swedish Osprey. Ecuadorian options on a second batch of Harpía could not be fulfilled due to war work (although Hawkers would honour Ecuador's deposit payments after WW2).

Top A newly-delivered Hawker Harpía of Desca 'B', Escuadrilla de Bombarderos, Ala de Combate 12, based at Destacamento Aérea (DA) Andoas. The locally-applied camouflage is the early Amazónica scheme - often referred to as 'Pepinillos Recogidos' (Pickled Gherkins).

Although planned to augment the IMAM Ro.37bis fleet, the Harpías proved capable of showing the 'Alfas' a clean pair of heels. Popular with crews, the Harpías deployed to FAE detachment airstrips in Amazónica. Desca 'B' at DA Andoas had three Harpías in permanent rotation. Another three were rotated through DA Santa Maria Nieva (the latter field seeing Ro.37s when Harpías had to be withdrawn to BA Guayaquil for major maintenance. On average, at least four Harpías were 'on station' in Amazónica. These near-permanent forward basings put the Harpías on the frontline when the Guerra peruano-ecuatoriana broke out in July 1941.

The Harpías made a good showing in the 'guerra del 41' despite their modest bomb loads. Amazingly, none of the Hawkers were lost in combat. However, by the time of the 29 January 1942 Armisticio, all of the Harpías had suffered some form of damage and the small fleet was virtually worn out. With the end of active hostilities, all Harpías were returned to Guayaquil for assessment and a complete overhaul. However, the first action was robbing the six Harpías of their Bristol Mercury VIIIA powerplants - the surviving Bristol Busardo I fleet was now given priority for all Mercury engines remaining in Ecuador.

The Fábrica de Aviones Militares Ecuatorianos' recommendation was to relegate the Harpías to an advanced training role. With reduced power being acceptable in this role, the Harpías could be re-engined with 650 hp Alfa Romeo 125 R.C.34 radials made surplus by the earlier upgrading of Ro.37bis recce-bombers. This scheme was accepted by the Oficina del Comandante General - FAE and FAME began modifying the Hawker airframes to accept the Ro.37bis engines. [3] Once airframe refurbishment was complete, FAME was able to re-deliver five Hawkers to the FAE (Harpía '181' having been sacrificed to supply parts for its former wing-mates). The new 'Entrenadora Harpía' - or, more properly, FAME/Hawker Harpía IIE - joined the FAE's Escuela Superior Militar de Aviación in the Summer of 1943. After serving at BA Guayaquil for almost two years, four surviving Harpía IIE relocated with ESMA to BA Salinas in early 1945. The last 'Entrenadora Harpía' stood down in March 1947.

Bottom Hawker Harpía IIE (Entrenadora), FAE Escuela Superior Militar de Aviación, BA Guayaquil, May 1944

________________________________
 
[1] Fortuitously, engines ordered for the diverted Gaviláns did arrive in Ecuador. So too did engines for the undelivered, second batch of Hawker Harpías.  Being identical to the 825 hp Mercury VIIIA radials fitted to the Hawker Harpía, these engines became part of the spares pool.

Later on, some of the Gavilán engines were fitted to Busardo IIs. Later inquiries in Italy about access to Alfa Romeo Avio-built Mercurys (or 'Mercurius') revealed that only 37 such engines had ever been produced by Avio back in 1933-1934.

[2] In mid-September 1939, the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge was informed by Blackburn Aircraft  Limited that it was no longer in a position to accept foreign orders.

[3] It was found that the existing motor mounts would readily accept the 'new' engines. This was not a complete surprise since the origins of the Italian radial were in the Bristol Pegasus - a longer-stroking derivative of the Mercury.

BTW: The Harpías are based on two profiles by Clave - one Demon and one Hart Trainer.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on April 19, 2020, 10:07:01 PM
Great!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 21, 2020, 10:31:33 AM
Overseas Again - la Misión de Aviación Ecuatoriana en Italia

Thwarted in further British purchases, procurement efforts turned to Italy - one of the few major aircraft-making countries not embroiled in the European conflict. In 1939, an Ecuadorian purchasing commission - la Misión de Aviación Ecuatoriana en Italia - was set up in Rome. Initial interest was expressed in the Caproni Ca.310 light bomber (also in use with Perú) and the more powerful Fiat C.R.25 (as a heavy fighter companion to the Busardo). Neither aircraft was purchased - Caproni (having interests in Perú) being particularly uncooperative. Inquiries about access to Alfa Romeo Avio-built Mercurys (or 'Mercurius') revealed only 37 such engines had ever been produced in 1933-1934. Instead, attention was diverted to available Pegasus derivatives - Alfa's 127 R.C.55
(750 hp at 5,500 m/18,000 ft)

The Italian the Ministero dell'aeronautica did offer a range of former Regia Aeronautica aircraft for immediate delivery. Of these, the FAEE declined the Caproni Ca.101 (this bomber-transport was regarded as obsolete but the decision was also perhaps influenced by chilly relations with Caproni) and the experimental Piaggio P.32 II medium bomber types. Thanks to briefings by Ecuador's Comité de planificación de Aviación Militar, there was no interest in offers of more IMAM Ro.37bis recce-bombers either. [1] Where the Italian aviation mission did bear fruit was in procuring fairly modern, ex-Regia Aeronautica assault and fighter aircraft - respectively, the Breda Ba.64 and Fiat G.50/I types.

Tapa Superior de Italia from the Società Italiana Ernesto Breda

Four ex-Regia Aeronautica Breda Ba.25/Lynx trainers were agreed to but it was the offer of 16 Breda Ba.64s which was accepted with alactrity. The monoplane assault-bomber received direct approval from Ministro Vicente Santistevan Elizalde himself). The Ba.64 was being replaced in Italian service by the more advanced Ba.65 but, by South American standards, the 1936-37 vintage Ba.64 was quite a formidable combat aircraft. Plans were afoot to it improve performance. Alfa Romeo proposed re-engining the FAEE Ba.64s with Alfa's own, more powerful 9-cylinder radial - the similarly-sized, 750 hp Alfa Romeo 126 R.C.34. [2]

In the plan devised by Alfa with el Comité, the Ba.64s would be fitted with the new 126 R.C.34s while the original 650 hp Alfa 125 R.C.34 radials would replace the Piaggio Stella P.IX R.C.40 engines of the FAEE's Ro.37bis fleet. At el Comité's request, Alfa Romeo prepared 12 conversion kits and crated 18 750 hp Alfa Romeo 126 R.C.34 9-cylinder radials for Ecuador - sufficient to convert a dozen Breda airframes to Ba.64/126 standards with a stockpile of spare engines. A sample Ba.64/126 - complete with SM.79 cowling - was shipped to Guayaquil to act as a pattern aircraft for conversions by the Fábrica de Aviones Militares Ecuatorianos (FAME). [3] In Ecuadorian service, the Ba.64 would be named Batará (Antshrike). [4]

Top Breda Ba.64 Batará II (Ba.64/126 conversion) under test by FAME at Guayaquil. Breda '740' - the Alfa Romeo pattern aircraft - retains its original Italian camouflage with roughly over-painted FAEE markings.

The six unaltered Bredas were to become Batará I operational trainers - although all were what the Italians called Biposto (the Ba.64 Doppio Comando trainer variant not being on offer to Ecuador). The re-engined Ba.64/126 became Batará II cazabombarderos issued to frontline assualt squadrons. There was a plan to rebuilt some of the 125-engined aircraft as dual-control trainers but this was not realized. However, one further variant was developed the Ba.64/130 or Batará IIA. This was a one-off conversion to test the suitability of the smaller-diameter Bristol Mercury to the Breda airframe. The conversion was considered a success but all available Mercury engines were needed to support the Busardo fleet.te the

Bottom Breda Ba.64 Batará IIA being tested with a Bristol Mercury. This engine was replaced by a 750 hp Alfa Romeo 126 R.C.34 prior to '741' being issued - in June 1941 - to Escuadrilla de Asalto , Ala de Combate 8, based at Destacamento Aérea (DA) Pavayacu.

FAME has carefully over-painted the original camouflage pattern with now-FAE Ecuador amazónico colours of Verde Jungla (Jungle Green), Bosque Verde (Forest Green), and Verde Pálido (Pale Green). '741' has been inscribed with the name of a national hero - Francisco Javier Eugenio de Santa Cruz y Espejo.

Along with the Hawker Harpías, the Bredas took the brunt of the 'guerra del 41'. By definition, the Asalto role meant low-level flying in the face of the enemy. The FAE Batarás were well-armed - although 7.7 mm Breda-SAFATs replaced the original 12.7 mm wing guns to save weight - but the Ba.64s had almost no armour protection for their crews. The Batarás also revealed an unfortunate tendency to ignite when struck by incendiary rounds. Despite their shortcomings, the Bredas were always to be found in the thick of things. Most of the combat fell to the more powerful Ba.64/126 Batará IIs but one of the most memorable air-ground actions of the war was performed by Batará I trainers flown by instructor pilots from ESMA. It was sorties by these half-forgotten Ba.64/125 operational trainers which scattered Perú's Czech-built LTP tanks as the Perúvian Army tried to advance up the Ecuadorian coast.

________________________________
 
[1] Although the notion of fitting Ro.43 floats to the 'Alfa Romeo' was flirted with by el Comité.

[2] The increase in power was not seen as an impediment - both Ba.64 prototypes had been powered by 700 hp Bristol Pegasus radials - the starting point for both the Alfa Romeo 125 and 126 engines.

[3] The rather grandly-named Fábrica de Aviones Militares Ecuatorianos was really a FAEE repair depot.

[4] The Batará (Antshrike) is a small but aggressive insectivorous passerine bird.

BTW: The Batará sideviews were modified from a Ba.64 profile by Zygmunt Szeremeta.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 22, 2020, 02:14:03 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 23, 2020, 03:43:32 AM
Although the Misión de Aviación Ecuatoriana en Italia was keen on the offer of Breda ba.64s, the gem amongst ex-Regia Aeronautica aircaft was the Fiat G.50/I. This monoplane fighter was far from the best in the world but it should be more than a match for Perú's seven new North American NA-50 'Torito fighters. On offer from the Italian Ministero dell'aeronautica were early model, CMASA-built G.50 serie I fighters with enclosed cockpits - a feature heartily disliked by Regia Aeronautica pilots. In December 1939, the first of 12 Fiat G.50/Is were loaded aboard a freighter in the Porto di Marina di Pisa for shipment to Ecuador. [1]

The first crated Fiats were Offloaded at Guayaquil in early January 1940. The initial pair of G.50/Is were assembly by the Fábrica de Aviones Militares Ecuatorianos (FAME) by the beginning of March. As acceptance trials commenced, the second pair of crated Fiats arrived in port. Trials showed that the new fighters would be tricky for less experienced pilots - particularly in their spinning characteristics. Naturally, the FAEE was anxious to confirm performance figures in order to gauge the Fiat against its most potent potential opponent - Perú's seven new 'Torito' fighters.

The Perúvian fighter had a slight edge in speed but was expected to be less manoeuvrable than the G.50. [2] The two aircraft types were similar in size with the NA-50 being marginally larger (with a span of   11.36 m versus the G.50's 10.99 m and wing areas of 21.9 m² for the NA-50 versus 18.25 m² for the Fiat.) The two fighter types had similar rates of climb but the Fiat's service ceiling was almost 1,000 m greater than that of its rival. Perhaps most important was the G.50 greater weight of fire - having twin synchronized 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns versus the NA-50's two rifle-calibre guns. Both fighters could be fitted with wing racks to carry light bombs (although such racks were not fitted to the FAE G.50 fleet until after the 'guerra del 41').

Beyond accepting surplus G.50/Is, the Misión de Aviación Ecuatoriana en Italia had also placed orders for 10 more advanced serie II fighters - the Fiat G.50/II. This order was quickly amended for a similar number of longer-ranged and aerodynamically-refined Fiat G.50bis fighters. However, in June 1940, Italy announced that it was halting exports of combat aircraft and Ecuador's Fiat G.50bis fighters were diverted to the Regia Aeronautica instead. As luck would have it, complete powerplant sections - engine, propellers, and cowlings - for the 10 G.50bis had already been dispatched for Guayaquil. This would serve as useful spares for the Ecuadorian Fiats as well as help keep part of the Busardo bomber fleet operational during the Guerra perúano-ecuatoriana

Top A Fiat G.50/I Falco ('727') under acceptance trials with the VPC (the Vuelo de Prueba Central), BA Guayaquil, June 1940. Note that FAEE markings have not yet been fully applied - this fighter is lacking tail stripes, wing roundels, and its individual aircraft number has only been chaulked onto its fin.

The assembled Fiat G.50/Is - or Falco (Falcon) as it was dubbed in Ecuadorian service - quickly entered service with the Escuadrilla de Cazas, Ala de Combate 10 at BA Guayaquil but this was mainly for show. It was known that the Cuerpo Aeronáutico del Perú already had their North American fighters in operational service - generally serving alongside Curtiss-Wright CW-22 advanced trainers. The newly rebranded Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana (FAE) followed suit - basing the G.50s with three of the force's Curtiss-Wright CW-19R advanced trainers. [3] In reality, the 'operational deployment of the FAE's Fiats was more of an extended 'working up' phase. Plenty of 'bugs' needed to be worked out but most were readily attended to. The G.50/I's cockpit canopy was another matter altogether.

As delivered, the G.50/I had fully-glazed cockpit covering - with unarmoured windscreen, sliding canopy, and an elegant, clear rear decking. This was fully in tune with modern practice (and essentially similar to the arrangement on CAP NA-50s). Poor quality Italian acrylic on the G.50/I canopies was one issue but the sliding canopy was also prone to jamming. A simple expedient which cured both problems was locking the sliding hood into its open position. This afforded pilots' a clear view without fear of being trapped in the cockpit by a jammed canopy. The problem was that top speed dropped to only 285 mph - a full ten mph less than the Perúvian fighter. Fortunately, the FAE was well aware of Italian efforts to solve the canopy issue. The Regia Aeronautica also locked its canopies open but the G.50/II (serie II) had eliminated the troublesome sliding hood altogether.

Ultimately, the FAE elected to follow the Italian example. By the summer of 1941, all of the Ecuadorian G.50s had their canopies removed an 'solid' sheet-metal fairings installed to replace the glazed rear panels. These modification nearly restore previous performance - top speed of the G.50 (mod) being measured at 293 mph. In the meantime, other less obvious changes had been made to the G.50 airframes. [4] The biggest was the installation of 'overload' fuel tanks in an attempt to address the Fiat's comparatively short range. [5] In total, four overload tanks were installed for an added capacity of 600 litres of fuel. These new,  Argentine-made overload tanks included twin 100 L wing tanks (replaced the G.50's small anti-personel bomb bays) and two 200 L tanks in the rear fuselage. The fuselage tanks were only feasible because the Ecuadorian G.50/Is were not fitted with wireless gear and other internal equipment was re-arranged.

Bottom A Fiat G.50 (mod) Falco of Escuadrilla de Caza, Ala de Combate 11, based at BA Macas during the 'guerra del 41'. Note the revised cockpit arrangement. This fighter has also lost its mud-collecting tailwheel spat while gaining a yellow nose (foreshadowing postwar FAE recognition markings).

The G.50 (mod) was not a huge improvement over the original G.50/I but the Fábrica de Aviones Militares Ecuatorianos was justifiably proud of its achievement. In testing the conversión de prototipo G.50 (mod), FAME had warned of some handling concerns with the modifications. The new rear fuselage tanks pushed the c/g close to the aft limit resulting in some loss of directional stability when the hindmost tank was full. As a result, the rear fuselage tanks became regarded as a 'ferry' tank and was generally left empty. Following that practice, the G.50 (mod) was almost as spritely as the original G.50/I but with much longer 'legs'. The FAE Fiats could never compete with their Perúvian counterparts on range but they bested the NA-50 in most other respects. In their intended role as short-range interceptors, the FAE's Falcos did everything that was originally asked of them.

_____________________________

[1] Ordered in two distinct batches, the G.50s were serialled 712-717 and 725-730 by the FAEE. The only real difference between them was that the second batch lacking fittings for an optional pair of 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT wing guns.

[2] Available information listed the NA-50's top speed at 295 mph at 2,900 m while the Fiat could manage a close 293 mph - but at 5,000 m. Manoeuvrability assumptions were based on the 'Torito' having inherited the broad-chorded wing from its NA-16 trainer forebearer.

[3] The two Curtiss-Wright designs were closely related. CAP's CW-22 had a more powerful engine (420 hp versus 350 hp for the FAE's CW-19R) and a retractable main undercarriage.

[4] Despite the range and pace of introduced changes, the suffix for modificado was only applied after the introduction of the overload tanks.

[5] As delivered, the G.50/I had a range of only 445 km. This compared very poorly with the NA-50's normal range of 1,038 km with an overload potential of 1,462 km (or more than triple the Fiat's range!)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 23, 2020, 03:45:19 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 02, 2020, 06:50:35 AM
My continuing Ecuador backstory became waaay too long. What follows, believe it or not is the severely cut down version...

The 1941 war with Perú took its inevitable course. Ceasefire terms were humiliating and most Ecuadorians blamed the sitting president - Carlos Alberto Arroyo del Río. This led to an unsuccessful coup attempt by the seudoliberale Alianza Democrática Ecuatoriana in May 1942. The failed attempt left the way open for a successful coup in June 1942 by the right-wing Partido Político Acción Nacionalista Revolucionaria Ecuatoriana (ARNE).

Once in power, ARNE back efforts by an officers' organization - the Liga Militar (Military League) - to instigate an indigenous uprising in la Región Amazónica. Beginning in late 1942, the Liga had been smuggling Spanish-supplied arms east. [1] When defence minister, Coronel Jorge Rodríguez Sáez, took the reigns of power in November 1942, the Liga's scheme gained official (albeit, still secret) support from Quito. By 1944, a full-scale guerilla war was brewing in the east. In Quito, this was seen as just desserts for the Perúvian occupiers and their American handlers. [2]

Ecuador's low-key but overtly anti-American stance made a strong post-WW2 relation with Britain essential. Closely observed, it would be obvious that Coronel Sáez had strong falangist leanings. But Britain wasn't playing close attention to remote Ecuador in 1943-44. As a result, Quito was able to extract British government promises for military aid for Ecuador to commence after the successful conclusion of the war in Europe. In August of 1944, an Ecuadorian military mission made its way (aboard neutral shipping) to the UK. Although given low priority by UK officials, mission members were able to make useful contacts among the UK's armament's producers.

A post-WW2 plan was drawn up by a joint forces (Fuerzas Armadas del Ecuador) committee. For the FAE, it was decided to focus on Merlin-powered combat aircraft - namely the Spitfire fighter and Mosquito attack bomber. In general terms, this scheme was agreed to by Whitehall. But everything changed with the July 1945 UK general election. The Labour Party was less inclined to buy Coronel Sáez's championing of democracia while elections were suspended due to the claimed threat of a re-emergence the Costa/Sierra divisions which had led to the Ecuadorian civil war. Nevertheless, the new UK government would honour most of the procurement agreements and payments made by Ecuador to date.

It had always been understood that detailed equipment choices would be based upon weapons deemed not needed for the on-going campaign against Imperial Japan. Problems arose when British choices overlapped with US-supplied material. A case in point was the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk.XVI which was powered by an American-made Packard Merlin engine. The aircraft in question had already been shipped to Guayaquil. It is arguable whether the Labour government could have stood up to the American protests but they did not. Instead, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin used the issue to renege on British deliveries of Mosquito fighter-bombers. The promised Canadian-made FB Mk.26s had Packard engines and other US-made equipment. All other Mosquito variants were claimed to be needed for the war on Japan.

Military mission members were at Filton talking about Blenheim parts when they were informed by Bristol staff that earlier-model Beaufighters were already be stored at RAF Maintenance Units prior to disposal. Ecuador had its edge - monies deposited on Mosquito was requested transferred to surplus Beaufighters instead. With no US-equipment angle to play, Whitehall reluctantly agreed to the sale of older Beaufighters to Ecuador. This produced shipments of Beaufighter Mk.VI and Mk.VIC for the FAE - mainly sourced from No. 19 MU, RAF St. Brides.

Shipments of other British aircraft to Ecuador followed. These included trainers (Miles Magister Mk.Is, ex-RAF; Miles M.27 Master IIIs, ex-Royal Navy; and Oxford Mk.Is, ex-RAF), target tugs (Miles M.25 Martinet TT.Mk Is ex-Royal Navy), fighter-bombers (Hawker Typhoon[/i]s, ex-RAF), and transport/maritime patrol aircraft (based on Vickers Wellington GR Mk.XIV airframes, ex-Coastal Command). All of these aircraft types were in active FAE service by the outbreak of the 'guerra del 47'.

________________________

[1] In 1942, Franco's Spain was the only country willing and able to replenish stocks of weapons for the Ejército Ecuatoriano. However, most of the delivery proved to be well-worn French-made small arms used in the Spanish Civil War. Of no interest to the EE, these arms were smuggled in to indigenous rebel groups in Amazónica - backed with promises of future independence for the region.

[2] Both Quito and Ecuadorian popular opinion held the US responsible for orchestrating the 'guerra del 41' (or, at least, unfairly favouring Perú). As a result, the 'interim' government refused to ratify the ceasefire agreement, attend the 1942 Pan-American Conference, or sign US-led regional initiative such as that which led to the the Rio Pact joint defence treaty.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 02, 2020, 06:51:54 AM
Only one Mosquito ever arrived in Ecuador. This aircraft was purchased from a California photo-survey company looking to standardized on US-made F-4 Lightnings. This aircraft is usually listed as a Canadian-built Mosquito FB Mk 26 but it has a bomber-type canopy. The exact 'parentage' of HC-DHM has never really been determined.

Top De Havilland Mosquito HC-DHM of EEFA photo-survey company, operating out of Quito-Cotocollao in 1946. The only markings on this hybrid aircraft besides registrations and small company titles is 'Mosquito' mascot on the cowlings with the name 'Zancudo'.

Marked as a civilian aircraft, the sole Mosquito flew under Ecuador Encuesta de Fotos Aéreas Ltda. But EEFA Ltda was shell company of the Ecuador's Ministerio de Defensa Nacional and all personel were seconded from the Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana. 'Zancudo' disappeared over la Región Amazónica in late 1946. No trace was ever found and Perú did not claim the Mosquito's destruction.

With no ex-RAF Mosquitos forthcoming, the FAE accepted Bristol's recommendation of Beaufighters (pending availability of Brigands). The first Beaufighters arrived in Ecuador before the end of 1945 but the Beaus did not enter full FAE service until almost a year later. By then, Ala de Combate 8's Escuadrilla de Asalto was in the process of being redesignated Esc. de Ataque.

Bottom Bristol Beaufighter Mk.VIC, Escuadrilla de Asalto (Ataque), Ala de Combate 8, based at BA Macas for operations over la Región Amazónica during the 'guerra del 47'. Note that Negra 5 is a 'Cañón-Beau' - being fitted with neither bomb racks nor rocket rails. This aircraft was delivered with inappropriate full rudder stripes [1] which have been overpainted and the correct tail flag applied.

___________________________

[1] Since 1945, operational FAE aircraft wore flags. Only trainers and non-tactical transport aircraft retained full rudder stripes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on May 03, 2020, 06:42:21 AM
Oh, I thought they would have participated directaly in the war  :( ; nonenless, nice job  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2020, 10:20:45 AM
Sport25ing: If you mean WW2, then no. But in my AltHist, Peru and Ecuador have a few more goes at each other  ;)

Meanwhile, a brief diversion from Ecuador ...

Based on this discussion: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.msg170632#msg170632 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.msg170632#msg170632)
__________________________________

The Allison Powered Spitfires

With the Supermarine Spitfire designated priority type, early consideration had been given to overseas production. For ease of delivery to Britain, Canada was the obvious production spot but the Spitfire airframe was considered too advanced. Instead, Canada's fledgling aero industry was assigned the task of producing less demanding Hawker Hurricane fighters.

Quite separately, thought was given to alternative engines for the Spitfire should Rolls-Royce Merlin production be compromised. The only plausible replacement engine candidate was the US-made Allison V-1710. In its early form, this engine was already in RAF service on Curtiss Tomahawk. A revised version of this engine with a raised thrust line was thought suitable for the Spitfire. Accordingly, a ground instruction airframe - Spitfire K9797 - was repaired and modified to accept the American V-12. [1] Although physically larger than the Merlin, installation of a 1,150 hp Allison V-1710-F3R (USAAF V-1710-39) provided no insurmountable hurdles. The Ministry of Aircraft Production dubbed the Allison engine Accipiter but the name did not stick. [2]

The Spitfire Mk.X, as the re-engined airframe was re-designated, had a reduced performance compared with Merlin-powered Spits but this was considered acceptable for the North African theatre. Accordingly, in 1941, plans for Spitfire production in Canada were revisited. Ottawa was enthusiastic about the scheme so it was decided to phase out Canada Car & Foundry's Fort William, Ontario Hurricane production in favour of Allison-powered Spitfires. The first were Spitfire Mk.XIs assembled from British-made components but fitted with Lend-Lease 1,150 hp Allison V-1710-F3R (USAAF V-1710-39) engines. These fighters were also armed with American weapons - four wing-mounted Browning .50-inch machine guns.

The Spitfire Mk.XII is considered the first truely Canadian variant (although it too incorporated some British parts). This fighter increased armament to six 'half-inch' Brownings although the Spitfire Mk.XIIA for the RCAF reverted to a four-gun armament. The Spitfire Mk.XIII was single prototype fitted with the British Spitfire Mk.V's 'C' wing armed with twin 20 mm British Hispano cannons and a quartet of .303-inch Brownings. This model was eclipsed by the main production model, the Spitfire Mk.XIV. This fighter was armed with twin 20 mm cannons (installed overseas) and a pair of .50-inch Brownings (although RCAF Spitfire Mk.XIVAs retained four Brownings).

The weak point for the Allison-powered Spitfires was their low-rated superchargers. In 1943 it was decided to experiment with exhaust-driven turbosuperchargered engines. To that end, an early Spitfire Mk.XI was rebuilt with what was effectively one-half of a P-38H Lightning's powerplant. Re-engined with a 1,425 hp Allison V-1710-F17L, this engine's exhaust pipes were routed along the fuselage to drive a General Electric B-13 turbosupercharger mounted in the Spitfire's belly.

The turbosupercharged prototype conversion - RCAF #984, redesignation as a Spitfire Mk.XV - didn't last long. On a test flight, the 'blower' installation caught fire. Test pilot (and CCF aeronautical engineer) Victor Stevenson attempted to regain the Fort William airstrip but was forced to bail. Both pilot and flaming Spitfire Mk.XV came down in Lake Superior. Stevenson was quickly picked up by a rescue launch, the wreckage of the Spitfire Mk.XV would not be recovered for almost a month.

After the RCAF's final Spitfire Mk.XIVA was delivered, it was decided to phase out Allison-powered Spitfire production. Instead, CCF received Spitfire DP845 as a pattern airframe for future Rolls-Royce Griffon-powered Spitfires. Thereafter, CanCar's Fort William plant produced near-finished airframes to be shipped to the UK for completion with Griffon engines, Rotol airscrews, and other British-made components.

____________________________

[1] K9797 was the 11th production Spitfire but was written-off in 1938 while in service with 19 Squadron. As an early-model airframe which had received few upgrade features, K9797 was judged a good candidate for experimental modifications.

[2] The name choice seems to have reflected Roll-Royce naming practices. Accipiters are raptors, including Sparrow-hawks (Accipiter nisus) and Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on May 03, 2020, 11:47:59 AM
 :smiley: ;D
That's a convoluted path the exhaust pipes take to the turbo.
Did Petter consult on the design?  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on May 03, 2020, 05:48:10 PM
:smiley: ;D
That's a convoluted path the exhaust pipes take to the turbo.
Did Petter consult on the design?  ;D

Yes rather convoluted.  Though ain't lot of room work with.  Still, rather convoluted.  :smiley:  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 04, 2020, 02:15:08 AM
That's a convoluted path the exhaust pipes take to the turbo.

It is indeed but, as finsrin suggests, there are limited options on the Spitfire ...

Taking the pipes straight back to an upwards-facing turbo (P-38-style) would block the portside cockpit hatch. Mounting the turbo under the engine (P-37-style) would shorten exhausts but also displace Supermarine-style oil tank (but to where?). Mounting the turbo on the front fuselage side (Ki-87-style) would impinge upon the main fuel tank. So, yeah, limited options.

With hindsight, the sensible thing would be an Allison with a two-stage, two-speed supercharger (à la Merlin 60 series). But, for reasons unknown, the USAAF rejected Allison's supercharger suggestions along that line (and Britain wasn't going to fund its development). My dodge (since the CCF Spitfire were already 'non-standard') was to drop the Allison and make the later Canadian-made airframes analogues for the RW Mk.XII.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 04, 2020, 02:28:35 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on May 04, 2020, 06:19:40 AM
Faced with all of those installation issues, I suppose this would be the best you could manage with all of the physical limitations and restrictions caused by the existing fuselage design.  A two-stage supercharger system might have sorted out the problems but would the longer cowling/engine create center of gravity issues for the Spitfire?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 06, 2020, 02:23:02 AM
Cheers Jeff. I don't think that a 2-stage Allison would have created insurmountable problems for the Spitfire airframe. A 2-stage V-1710 would be long though. Still, the Spit coped with Griffon installations which weighed 500 lbs more than the longer V-1710.

Back to Ecuador, but still on Spitfires ...
_____________________________

Swapping Awkward for Elegant - Supermarine Spitfire G.50 Replacement

A priority for Ecuador's immediately post-WW2 buying binge was replacement fighters. The choice fell to the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk.XVI - a 'bubble-topped', Merlin-powered aircraft. [1] The 'Spitfire 16' as it would become known in Ecuador was a somewhat ironic choice. Its powerplant was a US-made Packard Merlin engine. (That fact would later prompt an American diplomatic protest which, in turn, elicited an official apology from the UK government for the unauthorized re-export of US equipment.) The 'Spitfire 16' was light and short-ranged but, under any conditions, the British aircraft was far superior to Peru's latest fighter - the Curtiss P-36G.

Armament for the 'C' winged 'Spitfire 16' was twin 20 mm British Hispano cannons with a quartet of 7.7 mm Browning machine guns in the outer wings. Initially, it was hoped to replace the rifle-calibre guns with 12.7 mm Breda-SAFATs but that scheme was abandoned to speed the transfer of ex-RAF fighters to the FAE. The Spitfires were simple stripped of paint and had FAE markings applied before being shipped off for Ecuador. In FAE service, the outermost pair of Browning guns were removed to save weight (and in the believe that this would enhance manoeuvrability),

Top A 'Spitfire 16' of Escuadrilla de Caza, Ala de Combate 11, based at BA Macas for operations over la Región Amazónica during the 'guerra del 47'. Basic markings are standard for all FAE Spitfires. AdC 11 variations included aircraft had Reconocimiento Amarillo (Reco Yellow) stripes on their tails, leading edges, and spinners. In this case, the spinner is plain 'RA', some received black-and-yellow Abejorro (Bumblebee) stripes.

AdC 11's 'N' has a highly unofficial personal emblem on the cowling. The pugnacious duck in uniform and 'O ye cannae' slogan suggests a Scots pilot with former experience of Royal Navy Seafires. There was someting of a double standard on personal markings in the FAE. While such markings were forbidden for regular FAE personnel, with foreign 'soldados de la fortuna' the practice was often winked at by officialdom. Note that 'N' mounts one of the troublesome 205 L (45 imperial gallon) 'cigarro' drop tanks on its belly rack.

Bottom A 'Spitfire 16' of Escuadrilla de Caza, Ala de Combate 10 based at BA Guayaquil. AdC 10 Spitfire markings differed in detail from those of AdC 11. Aircraft 'E' shows its unit's 'RA' fin/wing tip panels and cowling ring. Most AdC 10 Spitfires had olive or black anti-glare panels although this aircraft lacks one. In a few cases, spinners were painted bright colours (although el rojo de CAP was banned). A few AdC 10 aircraft featured both 'RA' wing tips and AdC 11-style leading edge reco panels.

Note that this aircraft carries 2 1/5 victory marks beneath its windscreen. That suggests that 'E' was the mount of Alférez (F/O) Juan María Hernández who had gained such a score while flying Fiat G.50s in 1941. Again, such personal markings are unofficial and probably applied after the resumption of hostilities in March 1947.

___________________________

[1] The engine choice was meant to aid in commonality of spares since the Blenheim replacement of choice was the de Havilland Mosquito. Ironically, the British government never did agree to sell Mosquito fighter-bombers to Ecuador.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 11, 2020, 08:03:04 AM
My continuing Ecuador backstory became waaay too long. Here's the bare facts. The 1941 war with Perú took its inevitable course. Ceasefire terms were humiliating and most Ecuadorians blamed the sitting president - Carlos Alberto Arroyo del Río. This led to an unsuccessful coup attempt by the seudoliberale Alianza Democrática Ecuatoriana in May 1942. The failed attempt left the way open for a successful coup in June 1942 by the right-wing Partido Político Acción Nacionalista Revolucionaria Ecuatoriana (ARNE).

Once in power, ARNE back efforts by an officers' organization - the Liga Militar (Military League) - to instigate an indigenous uprising in la Región Amazónica. Beginning in late 1942, the Liga had been smuggling Spanish-supplied arms east. [1] When defence minister, Coronel Jorge Rodríguez Sáez, took the reigns of power in November 1942, the Liga's scheme gained official (albeit, still secret) support from Quito. By 1944, a full-scale guerilla war was brewing in the east. In Quito, this was seen as just desserts for the Perúvian occupiers and their American handlers. [2]

Ecuador's low-key but overtly anti-American stance made a strong post-WW2 relation with Britain essential. Closely observed, it would be obvious that Coronel Sáez had strong falangist leanings. But Britain wasn't playing close attention to remote Ecuador in 1943-44. As a result, Quito was able to extract British government promises for military aid for Ecuador to commence after the successful conclusion of the war in Europe. In August of 1944, an Ecuadorian military mission made its way (aboard neutral shipping) to the UK. Although given low priority by UK officials, mission members were able to make useful contacts among the UK's armament's producers.

A post-WW2 plan was drawn up by a joint forces (Fuerzas Armadas del Ecuador) committee. For the FAE, it was decided to focus on Merlin-powered combat aircraft - namely the Spitfire fighter and Mosquito attack bomber. In general terms, this scheme was agreed to by Whitehall. But everything changed with the July 1945 UK general election. The Labour Party was less inclined to buy Coronel Sáez's championing of democracia while elections were suspended due to the claimed threat of a re-emergence the Costa/Sierra divisions which had led to the Ecuadorian civil war. Nevertheless, the new UK government would honour most of the procurement agreements and payments made by Ecuador to date.

It had always been understood that detailed equipment choices would be based upon weapons deemed not needed for the on-going campaign against Imperial Japan. Problems arose when British choices overlapped with US-supplied material. A case in point was the Supermarine Spitfire F.Mk.XVI which was powered by an American-made Packard Merlin engine. The aircraft in question had already been shipped to Guayaquil. It is arguable whether the Labour government could have stood up to the American protests but they did not. Instead, Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin used the issue to renege on British deliveries of Mosquito fighter-bombers. The promised Canadian-made FB Mk.26s had Packard engines and other US-made equipment. All other Mosquito variants were claimed to be needed for the war on Japan.

Military mission members were at Filton talking about Blenheim parts when they were informed by Bristol staff that earlier-model Beaufighters were already be stored at RAF Maintenance Units prior to disposal. Ecuador had its edge - monies deposited on Mosquito was requested transferred to surplus Beaufighters instead. With no US-equipment angle to play, Whitehall reluctantly agreed to the sale of older Beaufighters to Ecuador. This produced shipments of Beaufighter Mk.VI and Mk.VIC for the FAE - mainly sourced from No. 19 MU, RAF St. Brides.

Shipments of other British aircraft to Ecuador followed. These included trainers (Miles Magister Mk.Is, ex-RAF; Miles M.27 Master IIIs, ex-Royal Navy; and Oxford Mk.Is, ex-RAF), target tugs (Miles M.25 Martinet TT.Mk Is ex-Royal Navy), fighter-bombers (Hawker Typhoon[/i]s, ex-RAF), and transport/maritime patrol aircraft (based on Vickers Wellington GR Mk.XIV airframes, ex-Coastal Command). All of these aircraft types were in active FAE service by the outbreak of the 'guerra del 47'.

________________________

[1] In 1942, Franco's Spain was the only country willing and able to replenish stocks of weapons for the Ejército Ecuatoriano. However, most of the delivery proved to be well-worn French-made small arms used in the Spanish Civil War. Of no interest to the EE, these arms were smuggled in to indigenous rebel groups in Amazónica - backed with promises of future independence for the region.

[2] Both Quito and Ecuadorian popular opinion held the US responsible for orchestrating the 'guerra del 41' (or, at least, unfairly favouring Perú). As a result, the 'interim' government refused to ratify the ceasefire agreement, attend the 1942 Pan-American Conference, or sign US-led regional initiative such as that which led to the the Rio Pact joint defence treaty.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 12, 2020, 06:30:41 AM
I've lost motivation on the Ecuador story. So, I'll just finish with this ...

The Ecuadorian Military Mission to Britain was thwarted in procuring what it hoped would be the Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana's premier postwar fighter aircraft. The Bristol Centaurus-powered Hawker Tempest II would have made an ideal interceptor and fighter-bomber while sharing engine type with the hoped-for Bristol Brigand strike aircraft. That scheme quickly fell apart. The RAF would spare no Tempest IIs and the new Labour government took the opportunity to refuse all exports of Centaurus engines.

As a substitute for Tempest IIs, RAF contacts recommended substituting the older Hawker Typhoon fighter-bomber which was already being withdrawn from frontline RAF service. Whitehall had no objections to selling surplus Typhoons (which, June 1945, were already being gathered at storage facilities at Aston Down, Kemble, and Lichfield). The only apparent difficulty was yet another new engine type - the trouble-prone Napier Sabre H-24. In consultations with Bristol, somewhat startled staff were presented with a rather improbable 'solution' - substituting the Bristol Hercules radial which was about to enter FAE service on the twin-engined Bristol Beaufighter attack aircraft.

One RAF Typhoon F.Mk.Ib was supplied to Bristol's Filton design department. It is unclear how far any design work progressed but it is unlikely to have proceeded beyond taking measurement. Bristol had related experience (with the similar, Centaurus-powered Hawker Tornado) however it was quite clear that there would be little postwar market for re-engined Typhoons. Nor was it at all clear that Ecuador could afford the development costs for such an extensive re-working of war-worn airframes.

Top The 'Hercules-Typhoon' concept prompted by the Ecuadorian Military Mission to Britain. It is unlikley that Bristol took this proposal very seriously.

Even with their 'non-standard' engines, the standard Hawker Typhoons were seen as a valuable addition to the FAE. These were powerful aircraft with a proven wartime record as a ground-attack type. By comparison with other potential fighter types, the Typhoons were also relatively inexpensive. Accordingly, a selection of Typhoon F.Mk.Ibs from various RAF Maintenance Units were gather at Kemble in Gloucestershire for disassembly and crating in preparation for transport by road to Portishead quay in Somerset.

The 'Tifón' entered FAE service in January 1947. All 16 aircraft were carefully-selected Typhoon Ibs with 'bubble' canopies and 4-bladed propellers. These aircraft had been stripped of all paint and markings at Kemble and received simple FAE markings of Ecuadorian tail flages and roundels (with the fuselage roundels formed painting the inner 'rings' on an ID yellow panel). Anti-glare panels were quickly added after the aircraft had been delivered to the newly-formed Escuadrilla de Ataque, Ala de Combate 20. AdC 20 was an 'all volunteer' made up exclusively of ex-Commonwealth pilots and ground crews with Typhoon experience.

With the outbreak of the 'guerra del 47', all AdC 20 aircraft received heavy overpainting of their silver airframes. This was a field mod authorized by the unit commander who was convinced that the low-flying, stripped Typhoons would be too easily spotted by intercepting fighters. All of AdC's Typhoons were over-sprayed in a random blotch pattern of various shades of green (and, occassionaly, browns).

Bottom Typhoon Ib of Adc 20, at BA Macas, March 1947. Note that the entire upper surface has been overpainted in green (save the rear fuselage ID panel). Oddly, the cannon covers on 'F' seem to be in their original RAF Medium Grey. Note too that no FAE aircraft numbers have been applied (a fairly common ommission in those busy times).

This Typhoon was one of the first lost over Perúvian-occupied territory. Perú claimed a victory for its light anti-aircraft artillery batteries. The Australian pilot of 'F' - who bailed out successfully - later said that he had flown through a flock of large white birds.

A popular assumption is that FAE Typhoons were rocket armed. In reality, all AdC 20 Typhoons were fitted with bomb racks. FAE rocket attacks were all performed using Miles Martinet trainers. [1]

_______________________________________

[1] The RAF had trialled a Martinet with six rocket rails during the war. FAE Martinets fitted with rocket rails had only four - two per wing. In FAE service, the British RP-3 60-pound rocket projectile was referred to as the RP-27 (Proyectil de Cohete de 27 kg).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on May 12, 2020, 05:27:16 PM
Perhaps an R-2800 would work on a Typhoon too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 13, 2020, 02:53:53 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 13, 2020, 02:58:06 AM
Perhaps an R-2800 would work on a Typhoon too.


You were saying...

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/melbsyd/typhoonr.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 13, 2020, 11:17:40 AM
Very nice Greg! Is that a P-60E cowling?
________________________________________

The 1939 Battle of Khalkhin Gol over Mongolia had demonstrated the Nakajima Ki-27's marginal superiority over early-model Soviet Polikarpov I-16 monoplane fighters. It was anticipated that later model I-16s would reduce or eliminate that edge - especially in weight of fire. At the same time, company and Imperial Japanese Army test pilots found the planned Ki-27 replacement fighter - the Nakajima Ki-43 - to be a disappointment. The Ki-43 prototype proved little faster than the Ki-27 and less manoeuvrable. Clearly an interim 'fix' was needed.

With Professor Hideo Itokawa and engineer Yasumi Koyama fully engaged in perfecting the Ki-43, the task of redeveloping the Ki-27 was assigned to Jingo Kurihara (general manager of Nakajima Hikoki K.K.'s main Utsunomiya plant). In reality, design work on the revised Ki-27 fell to engineer Setsuo Nishimura. The key goals were increased speed (especially when diving) and longer-ranging armament all while retaining as much of the original Ki-27 airframe as possible. To that end, Nishimura and his team undertook a thorough redesign of the Ki-27 - aiming more to employ individual structural parts from the Ki-27 rather than assembled components.

The obvious route to higher speeds was increased power. Ichiro Sakuma of Nakajima's aero-engines division was able to squeeze more power out of the Kotobuki radial by increasing its compression. The resulting Kotobuki 4-Kai - producing 740 hp for take-off and 800 hp at 2,900 m - entered production at Nakajima's new Musashino plant. Trialled in an otherwise standard Ki-27, the Kotobuki 4-Kai modestly increased top speed to 298 mph at 3,500 m. That increase also came at a cost - range was reduced to 600 km engine life reduced. However, to design staff, added frontline maintenance burdens were acceptable for the potential performance increase in the revised fighter.

Meanwhile, structural revisions had begun. In order to increase diving speed (to match the I-16), it had been decided at an early stage to adopt a retractable main undercarriage similar to that of the trouble-prone Ki-43. Beyond the obvious changes to the wing structure, this also required the nose to be lengthened (to accommodate new wheel wells). At a stroke, a solution to the armament challenge suggested itself. Lengthening the nose also meant a longer armaments bay. In place of the Ki-27's two rifle-calibre Vickers-based Type 89 guns, the new aircraft would carry twin 12.7 mm Ho-102s (a licensed-built Breda-SAFAT gun). [1] A basic form for the revised fighter was nearly complete. The only other change of note was a slight repositioning of the wing to restore the centre of gravity.

Initially, IJAAF planners called this Ki-27 evolution a Shisaku Jusentoki (Army Experimental Heavy Fighter) - the 'heavy' reference being to the fighter's armament of twin 12.7 mm guns (which the IJA regarded as 'cannons'). Once accepted for construction, the designation 'Army Type 99 Fighter' (1939 being the year 2599 in the Japanese calendar) was applied. As a short form, the aircraft would be called the Nakajima Ki.37. This designation had previously applied to a twin-engined Nakajima heavy fighter. [2] Re-assigning a 'Ki' designation was slightly odd and may suggest an attempt to hide from the Rikugun Koku Hombu (Army Air Headquarters) that rather major redesign work was underway.

Top Prototype Nakajima Army Type 99 fighter at Utsunomiya airfield in November 1939

The Army Type 99 fighter prototype flew on 10 Nov 1939. By then, the Khalkhin Gol conflict was over. (Work on the Type 99 had continued to counter the increasingly sophisticated fighters being met over China.)  No problems were encountered on the first flight although no attempt was made to retract the main undercarriage and the aircraft was powered by a standard Kotobuki Ha-1 Otsu engine. Luck held until 08 Dec 1939 when the new Kotobuki 4-Kai powerplant was installed. On the first flight with the new engine, the weather closed in, forcing the test pilot to circle off the coast. [3] Then, the prototype's new engine began vibrating and over-heating. The pilot declared his emergency and was instructed to try landing on Hiraiso beach at Hitachinaka. Fortunately, the tide was out and the prototype was put down on the sand with its undercarriage extended and no further damage.

Meanwhile, the new fighter had entered production alongside the last Ki-27s at Nakajima's Utsunomiya plant. The first was delivered to the IJAAF in late January 1940. Working-up training lasted until early March 1940 when the first Ki-37s redeployed to Foochow in SE China. There, the Ki-37s proved superior to any fighter in Chinese service. In the summer of 1940, Soviet aviation personnel in China were withdrawn. The Ki-37s were then able to establish complete air-superiority over the South-East until the arrival of the American Volunteer Group. With the delivery of AVG P-40Bs, the balance changed. The Curtiss repeated the advantages of the I-16 over the Ki-27 - the P-40s could roll into a dive and disengage from combat with Ki-37s whenever they chose. Fortunately for the IJAAF, the refined Nakajima Ki-43 was already replacing the Ki-27s and Ki-37s in China.

Bottom An operational Nakajima Ki-37 Ko deployed to Foochow. Note that this fighter had been fitted with a camouflaged propeller spinner taken from a Ki-37 Otsu.

_________________

[1] This was intended as a temporary expedient. Chuuou Kougyou K.K. was already working on their Ho-103, a Browning-based gun firing the same Vickers/Breda 12.7 x 81 SR cartridge. The Ho-103 would appear it 1941 but its synchronized firing rate (only ~400 rpm) proved inferior to that of the Breda-based Ho-102 (700 rpm).

[2] Work on this earlier Ki-37 (and the rival Mitsubishi Ki-39) had been halted in favour of a Kawasaki design (the Ki-38 which which would, itself, be eclipsed by Kawasaki's later Ki-45 Toryu).

[3] Fortunately, the prototype's wireless set had finally been installed on 08 Dec 1939 and the pilot was able to consult with the control tower at Utsunomiya.

BTW: The sideviews combine elements of profiles by Zygmunt Szeremeta and Ronnie Olsthoorn.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 13, 2020, 10:29:56 PM
Perhaps an R-2800 would work on a Typhoon too.

From what I've read, the problem with installing a radial onto a Typhoon was what was hanging off the back of a radial, it clashed with the main spar. Same thing with the Vulture. What Hawker did was drop the spar down three inches which gives it a deeper fuselage section, and because that made it different, they called the aircraft the Tornado.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 14, 2020, 03:46:56 AM
Very nice Greg! Is that a P-60E cowling?


Nope.  P-47
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 14, 2020, 04:25:07 AM
Nope.  P-47

Ah! I think it was the Tiffie spinner that threw me off.

Robert: Too true. Doubtless Camm would have preferred a single airframe capable of accommodating either engine type without major modification. The Type N/Type R split was dictated by that humungous 2-speed supercharger hanging off the back of the Vulture. Fortunately, that steel-tube centre fuselage section made the creation of a slightly deeper fuselage a reasonably simple affair.

One puzzle for me was the original, aft positioning of the radiator bath on the first Tornado prototype. The Vulture only weighs 90 lbs more than the Sabre ... so why bother repositioning the bath?

Weight brings me back to my improbable Ecuadorian concept for a Hercules-Typhoon. Obviously, the Hercules is much less powerful than a Sabre, but it also weighs quite a bit less (~430 lbs). So, the Hercules-Typhoon could have its engine mounted further forward and avoid spar entanglements. By contrast, dry weights for the Centaurus was 2,695 lb while the R-2800 was 2,360 lb (same as the Sabre, less radiator of course).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 14, 2020, 05:53:38 AM
Stephen, the Hercules installed on Bristol Freighters were 2000hp each, about on par with early Sabres
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 15, 2020, 01:44:30 AM
Yes, I'd based mine on the Vickers Valetta with similar output. Certainly enough to do the job.

My Ecuadorian Typhoon would be strictly a ground-pounder so I reckoned that the Hercules was more than enough. Besides, the best Peruvian fighter of 1945 was the Curtiss P-36G  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 22, 2020, 10:37:29 AM
A pair of proposed RW Supermarine Type 224 evolution schemes ...

Bottom A Supermarine study for a straight-wing Type 224 (based upon 1/16 scale wind tunnel test results).

Over on Secret Projects, Ralph Pegram (Schneiderman) explained that Supermarine knew that its Type 224 was flawed even before it flew. Improvement schemes studied included one option to modify the prototype as quickly and cheaply as possible while introducing a straight wing. The original, cranked centre-section (NACA 0018) was eliminated and a new, constant 4° dihedral wing (RAF 34 section). The fuselage was deepened to make up for removal of the inverted-gull centre-section.

A 1/16 scale wind-tunnel models was rebuilt to test the revised features. How successful those tests were is unknown. Early in 1934, the most promising improvement candidates were submitted to the Air Ministry. This deep-fuselaged, straight-winged concept may not have made the cut. Like the built Type 224, this aircraft was to be Rolls-Royce Goshawk-powered. Exhaust and evaporative-cooling 'plumbing' seem to be simplified but the drawing lacks detailed information.

Available drawings for this improved Type 224 are a bit sketchy. The drawing shows less shapely undercarriage trousers but I'm unsure of how much of the 'change' has to do with drawing style versus intentional design. I've replicated the drawing's straighter rear line of those trousers but found the forward line less convincing (for starters, there's insufficient space for wheel travel). The rear skid has also been made much simple (again, based upon the drawing). That drawing doesn't show a wireless mast so the aerial has been omitted.

Top A Supermarine straight-wing Type 224 study on its way towards the later Type 300

A more refined Type 224 revision, this aircraft has a fuselage more like the built prototype (and, presumeably, still of roughly square section). The main undercarriage is now retractable (and hints at influence from the then-contemporary Heinkel He 70). Available drawings vary on the tailwheel. In one drawing, the tailwheel is fixed and fitted with a spat (as shown). In other drawing, the tailwheel is fully retractable.

The new wing has a swept-back leading edge (and main spar) with a nearly straight trailing edge. This is a four-gunned fighter with synchronized (Vickers?) machine guns on the lower forward fuselage sides. The twin wing guns are mounted just inboard of the retracted main wheel wells. One drawing shows wing racks for small bombs mounted just outboard of those wheel wells. The powerplant is still a steam-cooled Goshawk but now fitted with the ill-fated 'Ramshorn' exhaust shrouds. This aircraft is well down the road to the earliest incarnations of the Type 300.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 23, 2020, 06:55:24 AM
Kind of an obvious Type 224 whif. I'm not sure that BdB would have approved of the spatsectomy ... but that float gear could be though of as the world's largest trousered undercarriage  ;)

__________________________

Rejected as a land-fighter, the Type 224 prototype K2890 was modified as Supermarine's submission to meet Air Ministry Specification F.8/34 for an RAF float fighter. The modified prototype was put through its paces over the Solent  by Capt. 'Mutt' Summers in early August 1935. However, by then, the specified Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine had lost is shine with the Air Ministry and the RAF had developed doubts about the need for fighters on pontoons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on May 23, 2020, 08:16:13 PM
beautiful floatplanization : nearly as beautiful as spats  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 23, 2020, 09:49:39 PM
Kind of an obvious Type 224 whif. I'm not sure that BdB would have approved of the spatsectomy ... but that float gear could be though of as the world's largest trousered undercarriage  ;)

__________________________

Rejected as a land-fighter, the Type 224 prototype K2890 was modified as Supermarine's submission to meet Air Ministry Specification F.8/34 for an RAF float fighter. The modified prototype was put through its paces over the Solent  by Capt. 'Mutt' Summers in early August 1935. However, by then, the specified Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine had lost is shine with the Air Ministry and the RAF had developed doubts about the need for fighters on pontoons.

I like that Stephen, but I'm thinking the struts would have been more like this.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 24, 2020, 06:18:42 AM
beautiful floatplanization : nearly as beautiful as spats  ;)

Cheers Eric! I was going for the enormous galoshes look  ;D

Robert: Thanks for the 'Narvik Nightmare' image  :smiley:  My original thought was that, while Mitchell worked on other projects, this conversion work had been passed on to Arthur Shirvall. So, as floats were Arthur's forte, he stick with something more Schneideresque  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on May 24, 2020, 01:09:24 PM
As Ralph Pegram's Beyond the Spitfire makes clear the racers and Spitfire were
atypical of Mitchell's design work. The float trousers wouldn't be outré coming from
his pencil.
 ;D

Thematically they fit the 1930s Brit design "look", along with other nations like say,
France.
 ;D

HD.780 seaplane fighter:
(http://airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/hd780/hd780-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on May 24, 2020, 07:40:08 PM
As Ralph Pegram's Beyond the Spitfire makes clear the racers and Spitfire were
atypical of Mitchell's design work. The float trousers wouldn't be outré coming from
his pencil.
 ;D

Thematically they fit the 1930s Brit design "look", along with other nations like say,
France.
 ;D

HD.780 seaplane fighter:

([url]http://airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/hd780/hd780-1.jpg[/url])


Fantastic timing!

I logged onto World of Warships for some weekend relaxation and discovered I had been granted three days access to Dunkerque and that it had a nifty little seaplane on its cat, I made a mental note to checkout what it was and promptly forgot.  Start reading here and what do I find.... thanks again.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on May 24, 2020, 09:16:18 PM

Robert: Thanks for the 'Narvik Nightmare' image  :smiley:  My original thought was that, while Mitchell worked on other projects, this conversion work had been passed on to Arthur Shirvall. So, as floats were Arthur's forte, he stick with something more Schneideresque  :D

Well I like your idea better, gives me an excuse to buy a Supermarine Type 224 (if I can find one)  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 25, 2020, 02:25:18 AM
Thanks folks!

Jon: Schneiderman's Beyond the Spitfire is definitely on my 'want it' list :)

I love the Dewoitine HD.780  :-*   Some time back, Alex did a bunch of whif schemes for the HD.780 (including inverted gull land fighters).
 -- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=197.msg1819#msg1819 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=197.msg1819#msg1819)
 -- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=197.msg3246#msg3246 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=197.msg3246#msg3246)

From some angles, the Dewoitine HD.411 racer also had a vaguely Supermarine-ish shape.
 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewoitine_HD.412#/media/File:Dewoitine_HD.412.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewoitine_HD.412#/media/File:Dewoitine_HD.412.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 25, 2020, 03:22:50 AM
I have one of these in the stash too:

(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner142/sinifer-sn48008-48-dewoitine-hd-780_1_0f4a95a1f22f4051579ee8c3302e7bed_zpswgxe6fra.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Volkodav on May 25, 2020, 05:15:42 PM
I have one of these in the stash too:

(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/GTwiner142/sinifer-sn48008-48-dewoitine-hd-780_1_0f4a95a1f22f4051579ee8c3302e7bed_zpswgxe6fra.jpg)

That will look great with your 1/48 resin Dunkerque!

(to be followed with in three weeks by a styrene mainstream version)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2020, 10:15:24 AM
In model kit news ... we present the new boxing of the Airfix Boulton Paul P.82 Defiance Mk.IIA in 1:72nd scale.

The new Airfix box art features a dramatic painting by Adam Tooby depicting the Defiance in action towards the end of the Battle of Britain. Less well known than its stablemates - the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane - the Defiance nonetheless represented a crucial 'third arrow in the quiver'.

The Defiance began as Boulton Paul's answer to a requirement for a two-seat turret fighter. This scheme was quickly dropped and the design rejigged as a conventional, single-seat fighter. The Defiance was not quite as fast as the Spitfire nor as manoeuvrable as the Hurricane but it had a much longer range than either. This give the Defiance more patrol endurance during 'The Battle' and ensured the Boulton Paul type's future.

After the Battle of Britain, the Defiance were assigned longer-range missions over occupied France and the Low Countries. As strafers, the Defiances became the terror of Luftwaffe bomber airfields. Later, equipped with bomb racks, the 'Daffy' (as RAF personnel dubbed it) engaged in 'tip and run' raids over German-held positions. Other Defiance marks were fitted out as fighter- and photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

The Airfix kit provides decals for two Defiance variants. One set is for PS-U, a Defiance Mk.IIA  of 264 (Madras Presidency) Squadron RAF during the Battle of Britain. The second set is for an early-model Defiance PR.Mk.IV of 212 Squadron, a detachment from the Photographic Development Unit operating from RAF Fowlmere in early 1941.

______________________________________

With apologies to Adam Tooby ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on May 30, 2020, 10:36:58 AM
Excellent alt-history and beautiful box art. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 30, 2020, 10:40:00 AM
Cheers Jeff.  Adam Tooby does really nice stuff ... but it just had to be fiddled with  >:D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on May 30, 2020, 10:12:47 PM
Type 224 with floats is so horny - nice one ;)
I could be tempted to build that.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 31, 2020, 03:20:30 AM
 :smiley:

Now where's the 1/48 version?! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 31, 2020, 10:30:22 AM
Greg: I wasn't going to show the 1/48 box art. But now I suppose I have to.

Personally, I think Airfix should have depicted the early Battle of Britain Defiance Mk.I conversion - or even the rare, cannon-armed Mk.IC. To my eye, the oblique-firing Defiance Mk.IA was just an odd-ball variant ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 01, 2020, 01:57:58 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 01, 2020, 05:37:36 PM
Me? I'd like to see the Defiance IIB, bubble-top, rocket/bomb & cannon armed, close support version (mostly) used in the SE Asia Theatre. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 02, 2020, 12:44:06 AM
More random Defiants to come. Hadn't thought of SEA. Hmmm.  Meanwhile ...

______________________________________

In the Fall of 1938, the RAF concluded that a two-seat turret fighter would not survive under operational conditions. In the case of the chosen Boulton Paul P.82 Defiant, the power-operated turret and its gunner made up at least 10% of total loaded weight. The P.82 was an excellent airframe but the turret fighter concept had been flawed. Completed Defiant fighters were being delivered to MTUs while their fate was being decided. Then-current leanings were to transform the turret fighters into attack aircraft. [1] Design staff at Boulton Paul Aircraft Ltd. made another, alternative proposal.

The RAF's planned advanced trainer - the de Havilland Don had proved a major disappointment. The BP proposal was that Defiants be completed as two-seat fighter-trainers. Anticipating that the Ministry of Aircraft Production would be unwilling to allot frontline Merlin engines, BP suggested that trainer airframes be powered by Rolls-Royce Kestrel V-12s (the RAF having stocks of these older, less-powerful engines in storage). This scheme was accepted by the RAF and MAP and the first production turret fighter - L6950 - was returned to the manufacturer for conversion into a dual-control trainer.

The Boulton Paul Pembroke Trainer

Initially known as the 'Defiant Trainer', the conversion was not a straightforward one. The turret and belly radiator bath were stripped from L6950. Along with a new cowling, an under-nose 'chin' radiator (closely based upon those tested on the Miles Kestrel prototype) had to be fashioned and plumbed. The purpose of the new radiator installation was to re-establish the centre of gravity. The removal of turret lightened the airframe considerably, however the dry weight of a Kestrel XVI was 400 lbs less than the original Merlin powerplant. The rear cockpit control arrangement was less of a challenge since dual controls had been planned for the Defiant from the outset. With the turret removed, the rear cockpit proved rather spacious (although the instructor's field of view was somewhat restricted).

Of the first Defiant contract (No.622849/37), all but 25 of the airframes were revised as 'Defiant Trainers'- assigned the name and designation Pembroke Mk.I before entering service with the RAF's Fighter Training Schools. (The name being chosen because both Oxford and Cambridge have Pembroke Colleges.) The Pembroke Mk.IA introduced the Kestrel XXX engine and extra canopy frames for reinforcement. The final production model (to revised Contract No.34864/39 issued in Dec. 1939) [2] was for Pembroke T.Mk.IIs which could be distinguished by their Spitfire-like pilot's canopy. With the last Pembroke T.Mk.II (T4121) production ended at Wolverhampton - the RAF having finally exhausted its stocks of stored Kestrel engines.

____________________________

[1] Twenty-four Defiant turret fighters were completed as (or converted into) 'Defiant Attack' light bombers. These aircraft were fitted with wing racks for 2 x 250 lb GP bombs. Two .303 inch Browning machine guns were installed in each outboard wing panel. A single .303 inch Vickers 'K' gun armed the Bristol B.I turret which replaced the Boulton Paul Type 'A' original.

[2] A second contract (No.757867/39) for Defiant turret fighters had been placed in January 1938. This contract had been cancelled outright by December of that year.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 02, 2020, 02:49:23 AM
Maybe also a post war target towing one in this sort of scheme:

(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-2/127-1.jpg)
(http://www.arnoldstechart.se/images/secaw3.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 02, 2020, 08:55:35 AM
Maybe also a post war target towing one in this sort of scheme:

I like it! But meanwhile ...
____________________________

A Return to Daylight Bombing

On the night of 15-16 November 1940, RAF Wellington bombers pounded Hamburg again. The raid was aimed at Hamburg docks, the Blohm und Voss shipyards, railway centres, power stations, and general industrial targets. The final wave hit dockside again just before first light at 5:30 am. As always, the results were uncertain. Hamburg was shrouded with smoke but how much of that was the result of bomb damage and how much came from decoy fires was unclear. Either way, it had been a long night for Hamburg. The Flak Hilfern and Feuerschutzpolizei were more than ready for a rest when the 'all clear' was signaled at 6:00 am. Their relief was premature.

Just before 8:00 am, more British bombers appeared over Hamburg in broad daylight. This time, the bombers were the Handley Page Hampdens. Having left Lincolnshire at dawn, the aircraft of No.83 Squadron (from RAF Scampton) and No.44 'Rhodesia' Squadron (RAF Waddington) formed up out over the North Sea just before 6:00 am.

Their targets were three oil refineries around Hamburg with an emphasis upon the Deutsche Gasolin AG facility and the nearby Ruhrchemie hydrogenation plant. IG Farben's Deutsche Gasolin was producing synthetic petroleum from coal mineral oil as military fuel. [1] The first bombs fell at 8:05 amid fairly intense flak. The first Bf 110Cs interceptors of II./ZG 76 appeared as the second wave of RAF bombers began their run-in. From the German pilots' perspective, the lumbering Hampdens appeared to be leichte Beute or 'easy prey'!

Hals- und Beinbruch!

The Zerstörer crews were in for a nasty shock. Many of the Hampdens had sprouted a new nose defence in the form of a flexibly-mounted Vickers 'K' gun. As the leader of the first Kette found to his cost, approaching Hampdens from the front had just become a bit more dangerous. The second 'bounce' came from above. That only made matters worse. Positioned amongst the Hampden Mk.Is were newly-built Hampden Mk.IIIs. [2] These Mk.IIIs had an added 'sting'. In place of the Hampdens' usual dorsal 'K' gun position, the Mk.IIIs mounted Boulton Paul Type A turrets. [3] Capable of 360° traverse, each BP Type A turret mounted four .303-inch Browning machine guns. And for Hampden Mk.III gunners, these twin-engined Messerschmitt fighters presented fat targets.

(To be continued ...)

____________________________

[1] It was on the recommendation of Standard Oil of California (via the American Kellogg Co., makers of refinery equipment) that IG Farben brought Deutsche Gasolin AG into an arrangement with Ruhrchemie (hydrogenation being a key part of synthetic fuel production).

[2] The Hampden Mk.IIs were a pair of prototypes with alternative, American-made engines.

[3] The Hampden Mk.III was that bit heavier and 'draggier' than the Mk.I (or nose-gunned Mk.IA). To compensate, the Mk.IIIs carried a reduced bombload - 3,000 lbs versus the 4,000 lb full load of the Hampden Mk.Is.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 03, 2020, 03:16:21 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 03, 2020, 07:22:53 AM
A quickie before continuing the story. The mid-'60s vintage Airfix Hampden Mk.III kit in 1/72nd was afflicted with some outline inaccuracies (and the detail crudities of the time). However, this venerable kit was the only available Hampden Mk.III until the advent of an offering by Valom in 2008 ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ptdockyard on June 04, 2020, 12:40:01 AM
Don't forget a Sea Defiance for the FAA!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 04, 2020, 03:12:07 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 04, 2020, 10:35:04 AM
Don't forget a Sea Defiance for the FAA!

Thanks pt'. I was leaning that way but now I'm developing a variation of the Defiant theme for the FAA.

Is it obvious that I have no real plan? Yep, though so. BTW, most of these Defiant themes will be unrelated to one another (as far as backstory goes, at least).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 05, 2020, 02:43:43 AM
One could probably use something such as this (below) to create one of your variations in plastic:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/Wg8AAOSwwJ1eRC6E/s-l1600.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on June 05, 2020, 02:55:49 AM
Lovin' those Hampdens!  :-*

<...> The mid-'60s vintage Airfix Hampden Mk.III kit in 1/72nd <...>

Would buy this one for the box-art in an instant, better Valom kit available or not.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 05, 2020, 04:58:33 AM
Cheers folks! And now the story continues ...

Achtung! Schpitfeur!

The Zerstörer crews of II./ZG 76 were having a bad day. Having 'bounced' the Hampdens of No.44 and No.83 squadrons, they were at the receiving end of unexpected defensive armaments. But things were about to get even worse. As die Ketten regrouped into a Schwarm for an attack in force, an improbable cry came through the R/Ts - "Achtung! Schpitfeur!". Spitfires? Over Hamburg? How was that possible? Before the threat warning could even be processed, a 'finger-four' of elliptical-winged fighters screamed through the Schwarm. One Bf 110C dropped out of formation with its starboard engine smoking. Another Messerschmitt fluttered downwards apparently out of control - Scheisse! Diese mörderischen britischen Schweine!

The remaining Zerstörers scattered, scrambling to reform as Kettes. Few re-established their defensive pairings. The first group of RAF fighters climbed to catch another two Bf 110s from below. To the east, the main force of British fighters were wheeling about other Messerschmitts which had formed a 'Lufbery Wheel' to give their rear gunners an advantage. This defensive circle was a disaster. The faster British fighters dove on the formation too fast for the Luftwaffe gunners to draw a proper bead. The Brits repeatedly made their diving passes, then zoomed-climbed to attack from below. After losing a further four Bf 110s, the Staffelkapitän bowed to the inevitable and gave the order for the Messerschmitts to break formation and dive.

Jeder ist sich selbst der Nächste!

Diving for home proved the best choice for the Zerstörers. No further II./ZG 76 aircraft were lost over Hamburg on 16 November 1940. But the Luftwaffe was now facing a new challenge. Enemy escort fighters were now being encountered over the Vaterland! The Bf 110s had been tried and found wanting. The Jagdgeschwaders were still smarting from the Kanalkampf but some of those single-seat Bf 109s would have to be recalled to defend the Reich. Otherwise, escorted by fighters, the British terrorflieger could range unchallenged over Germany, dropping their deadly payloads at will. The balance of the air war had just changed.

Despite II./ZG 76 crew after-action reports and the conclusions of the Luftwaffe's Technische Intelligenz wonks, no Spitfires had appeared over Hamburg on the morning of 16 November 1940. With its range of only 415 miles, a Spitfire Mk.I could fly from southern England to Hamburg but it would have no fuel left for combat let along flying home again. [1] Still, the German misidentification was understandable. The Luftwaffe had just had its first, traumatic encounter with the RAF's new Boulton Paul Paladin long-range fighter. Dubbed the 'Spitfiant' by RAF wags, the Paladin was a hybrid - combining the simple-to-construct Boulton Paul Defiant fuselage (and empennage) with the superior, elliptical wings from the Supermarine Spitfire. [2] The result was a fighter with near Spitfire-like handling but a much more capacious fuselage.

In that Defiant-derived fuselage, the pilot sat sandwiched between petrol tanks. In front of him was the main tank holding 80 Imperial Gallons - in itself, just shy of the Spitfire's total fuel capacity. Behind the pilot was the long-range tank holding another 100 gallons. At its normal cruising speed, the Paladin had a range of 880 miles - more than enough for its 735 mile round-trip excursion from RAF Coltishall in Norfolk to Hamburg. At dawn on 16 November 1940, the Paladins of No.255 Squadron RAF were bearing due east from the Norfolk coast accompanied by turretless Defiants with navigators sat in their rear cockpits. The fighters rendezvoused with the Hampdens just south-west of Heligoland. Turning south-east, the formation could follow simply follow the glimmering Elbe down to Hamburg. The rest is history ...

Top The prototype Boulton Paul Paladin as delivered to the A&AEE at RAF Martlesham Heath for trials. Note that this aircraft had the unsatisfactory rear tank fuel filler cap on top of the fuselage. At this point. the prototype lacked an R/T mast and antenna. Like the first half dozen Paladin Mk.Is, the fixed tailwheel is a standard Defiant component and only a single rear-vision panel is fitted.

Bottom A Boulton Paul Paladin Mk.I of No.255 Squadron, RAF as flown over Hamburg on 16 November 1940. The pilot of this aircraft, W/O Ernie Mayne, claimed a 'probable' for one Messerschmitt Bf 110C on that day. [3]

_____________________

[1] To be fair, the Spitfire had been designed as a short-range interceptor. A range of 415 miles based on 85 Imperial Gallons of petrol was all that the Spitfire required to fulfil that original role.

[2] The wing sets were supplied by the Castle Bromwich Aeroplane Factory outside Birmingham. (Castle Bromwich being less than 25 miles by road from the Boulton Paul Aircraft Factory at Pendeford, Wolverhampton.)

[3] 39-year-old 'Pops' Mayne (an RFC veteran) had flown Spitfires with No.74 (F) Squadron from RAF Hornchurch at the start of the Battle of Britain. Despite being stood down from combat due to his age, Mayne was able to join No.255 Squadron - initially in a 'non-combat' capacity - when it first reformed at RAF Kirton in Lincolnshire.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on June 05, 2020, 09:43:34 AM
Will there be a later model sporting the windscreen and teardrop shaped blown canopy as seen on the later marks of Spitfire such as the Griffon powered F.Mk24?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 05, 2020, 07:00:21 PM
Great story & concept, mate! :-* 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2020, 02:41:03 AM
Jeff: Yes, there will be a 'bubble top' coming ... but involving a variation on my Defiant theme  :D

Cheers Venerable Vombatus! Not mentioned is that the Defiant fuselage has a cut-out for the wing. A new fuselage infill section was required to mate the separate Spitfire wing panels to. The official term for this new, stiffened centre-section stub was the 'Wing Horizontal Integration to Fuselage and Fatigue-Engineered Reinforcement Yoke' (short-form, WHIFFERY)  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 06, 2020, 04:06:21 AM
Any chance of a carrier based Sea Defiant?  Inclusion of turret welcomed too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 06, 2020, 09:33:06 AM
Any chance of a carrier based Sea Defiant?  Inclusion of turret welcomed too.


There's an FAA variant coming but I like the idea of an actual, turreted Sea Defiant too. Might have to tackle that later. (Maybe as a Roc alternative? That's not too far off from RW Boulton Paul offerings.)

[Edit] Just remembered that I had already done a Sea Defiant  :-[
 -- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg151117#msg151117 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg151117#msg151117)

Going back to the Paladin, that's a word most of us associate with the champion of a cause. Something I didn't know was that paladin in French can simply mean 'warrior'. Seems a propos
_____________________________

Improving the Breed - the Boulton Paul Paladin Mk.II

The Paladin Mk.IA featured minor equipment changes so the first major modification came with the cannon-armed Paladin Mk.II. This variant also introduced the 1,175 hp Rolls-Royce Merlin XII engine. In all other respects, the Mk.II was identical to the Mk.IA (indeed, many of the early Mk.IIs had been laid down as Mk.IAs). As the new Paladin Mk.IIs arrived at RAF Coltishall, No. 255 Squadron's Mk.Is and Mk.IAs were sent to Maintenance Units. After repair and overhaul, the older aircraft were passed on to No. 249 Squadron at North Weald where the Paladins replaced Hurricanes.

Elements of No. 255 Squadron deployed as a 'lodger unit' with No. 691 Squadron at RAF Roborough (outside of Plymouth) [1] for operations against German forces in the west of France. The first mission from Roborough was a long one - an almost 650 miles flight to La Rochelle and back. Work had begun on huge U-Boat pens at La Rochelle in April. The goal of the mission was to escort Boston light bombers to the target and then the Paladins would strafe flak positions around the construction works. [2] Although no Luftwaffe fighters were encountered, the formation took losses - two Bostons fell to flak while one Paladin was shot down by the very AA position it was attacking.

Top Paladin Mk.II 'E' (N4145) 'City of Norwich' of No. 255 Squadron RAF. This presentation aircraft was the very one lost at La Rochelle on 10 May 1941. Note that the new fuselage band has been painted over the aircraft serial.

Beginning in the early Summer of 1941, No. 249 Squadron was selected to redeploy to Malta. The Paladins were launched from aircraft carriers for the flight to that beleaguered island. The squadron, flying out of Takali, operating as the first line of aerial defence. By this stage, Luftwaffe forces had withdrawn and the enemy in the air was the Regia Aeronautica. Fortunately, even heavily-ladened with fuel, the Paladins could best most Italian fighter. Soon, the Malta force was on the offensive. The first offensive operation by Paladins was a night escort mission covering Wellingtons raiding Taranto.

Some Paladins were also fitted with bomb racks for 'tip-and-run' raids on the Italian island of Pantelleria. It was while attacking the Marghana airfield on Pantelleria that No. 249's Paladin's made their name. Flying Paladin N4460, F/O George 'Buzz' Beurling shot down two Macchi C.202 fighters taking off at Marghana and destroyed another, unidentified Italian aircraft on the ground. 'Shark Bite', with its garish nose art and massive Vokes carburettor filter fairing, was probably the least attractive of all Paladins.

Bottom Paladin Mk.IIA (Tropical) 'F' (N4460) of No. 249 Squadron RAF, Takali, October 1942. This aircraft is finished in the Malta scheme of Dark Earth/Mid Stone over Azure Blue. Note the 'Malta mod.' - both 20 mm cannons have been replaced with twin .5-inch Brownings to save weight and expand ammunition capacity.

__________________________________

[1] Former RNAS Roborough was taken over from the Royal Navy in late May 1941. No. 691 Sqn was a Coastal Command unit with mixed equipment - including some Defiants.

[2] Photo reconnaissance and local espionage had revealed that POW workers (mostly anti-Franco Spanish Civil War refugees) were on-site only at night. This prompted the daylight raid.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 07, 2020, 02:52:36 AM
[Edit] Just remembered that I had already done a Sea Defiant  :-[
 -- [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg151117#msg151117[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg151117#msg151117[/url])


Doh!  I forgot that one too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 09, 2020, 04:30:17 AM
Doh!  I forgot that one too.

I look at lots of stuff and then forget that I have. Its when you start forgetting things you've made that you start wondering what your synapses are doing with all their spare time  :o

_____________________

Aiming High - the Boulton Paul Defiant 'High Fighter'

In the Summer of 1941, Boulton Paul turned its attention to high-altitude fighter concepts. The prompt was Junkers Ju-86Ps flying over Britain at 41,000 feet or more. Some conceptual work was done on adapting the Paladin airframe for a mildly pressurised cockpit. [1] However, it seemed unlikely that the Paladin's wing would be sufficient to lift a high-altitude fighter to its 41,000 feet operating height. Attention then turned back to the original Defiant wing.

The Defiant wing had little more area than the Spitfire wings on the Paladin. However, the Defiant wing had separate outer panels. By simply designing extended-span outer panels, a high-altitude fighter could be created comparably quickly. The Wolverhampton design office considered their 'High Fighter' a Defiant conversion rather than a Paladin. And there was something to that ... but retaining the Defiant serial number was also something of a dodge. In doing so, Boulton Paul could claim that it was simply modifying a company demonstrator airframe for trials rather than creating a new aircraft which had yet to received Ministry of Aircraft Production approval.

Unfortunately for BP, by the time that their Defiant 'High Fighter' could demonstrate its abilities, prototypes of the extended-span Supermarine Spitfire Mk.VI were already flying. In many ways, the Defiant 'HF' was superior at high altitude [2] but the Spitfire Mk.VI was first, required minimal airframe modification, and, most importantly, had already been chosen for production by the RAF. In the end, all Boulton Paul gained was some pressure cockpit experience ... but at the cost of the ire of MAP officials.

Top Defiant 'High Fighter' conversion prototype in its experimental 'high-altitude blue' scheme. Note the extended-span outer wing panels. This aircraft was unarmed and carried neither 'ringed-P' prototype markings nor its RAF serial.

Last of the Breed - the Boulton Paul Paladin PR Mk.VI

With its long-range and relatively capacious fuselage, the potential for a photo-reconnaissance variant of the Paladin was obvious from the outset. The first were armed Paladin FR Mk.IIIs with F24 cameras in their rear fuselages. The first dedicated photo-reconnaissance variant was the Paladin PR Mk.VI. Unarmed, the Paladin PR Mk.VI was equipped with larger-format, longer-lensed F52 cameras. The Paladin PR Mk.VI employed D type 'wet' wings adding a further 66 Imperial Gallons to fuel load. Using a mid-sized slipper tank as well, the Paladin PR Mk.VI could photograph Königsberg. With the larger slipper tank, the aircraft could reach Tromsø.

Bottom A Merlin 61-powered Paladin PR Mk.VI photo-recce aircraft in standard, overall 'PR Blue' scheme and low-visibility national markings.

The long-range of the Paladin PR Mk.VI worked against it. Most photographic targets could be reached by PR Spitfires using the same 'wet' wings and slipper tanks. For the even longer range targets, the RAF had come to prefer the added safety margin provided by the twin-engine Mosquitos. As MAP looked to reduce the total number of airframes in production, their gaze naturally fell upon Boulton Paul. Orders for Paladins were curtailed and production wound down at Wolverhampton. However, Boulton Paul was down but not out ...

(To be continued ...)

_______________________________

[1] This system was devised using information gleaned from work done by RAE's High Altitude Research Department in the RAE pressure chamber at Farnborough.

[2] Some of that 'superiority' was based on performance estimates. Boulton Paul's request for the supply of a high-altitude rated 1,415 hp Merlin 47 engine with 4-bladed Rotol propeller was never granted.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 10, 2020, 01:27:25 AM
you start wondering what your synapses are doing with all their spare time

There's a scary thought...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 10, 2020, 01:28:38 AM
Using the Classic Airframes box art as inspiration, I wonder about a US Paladin... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 10, 2020, 01:35:53 AM
A RN FAA Sea Paladin might also be of interest.  Longer range etc?  Maybe even re-introduce an observer?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 12, 2020, 03:42:00 AM
some of your Paladin ideas aren't too far from truth - see here:  http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5762.new#new (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5762.new#new)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on June 12, 2020, 04:28:02 AM
you start wondering what your synapses are doing with all their spare time


In my case, trying to work out which route the lorries carrying the wings for the Paladins would take, from the CBAF, to Boulton Paul at Pendeford . . . yes I do know the area that well . . .  :-[
Of course nowadays the lorries take the reverse route, from the new JLR jaguar engine plant on the the northern edge of what was Pendeford Aerodrome, to the Jaguar assembly plant in what used to be the CBAF . . . but they use the Motorway, which didn't exist in 1940 . . .


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 13, 2020, 03:52:39 AM
In my case, trying to work out which route the lorries carrying the wings for the Paladins would take, from the CBAF, to Boulton Paul at Pendeford...

Well, you see, that's just one of many reasons that Paladin production was phased out. Still, I could have explained the original routing better...

That original, back-country road lorry routing proved quite impractical - the infamous occurrence between a juggernaut and that sheep farmer's gate along Ridding Lane outside of Wednesbury being but one of a series of major incidents!

Later routing was by barge along the Birmingham Mainline Canal until it joined the Shropshire Union Canal Main Line north of Wolverhampton. Barges were then offloaded at The Droveway for the short lorry trip to the Pendeford plant. It was a straightforward transport route that made use of barges which would most likely be returning empty to the Wolverhampton area. So why didn't it continue?

The major reason for the Ministry of Aircraft Production's decision against continued Paladin production was that CBAF had more Spitfire fuselages than it had wing sets to match. Left wingless, Boulton Paul had the choice of abandoning the Paladin altogether or devising its own wing design ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on June 13, 2020, 05:16:44 AM
That original, back-country road lorry routing proved quite impractical - the infamous occurrence between a juggernaut and that sheep farmer's gate along Ridding Lane outside of Wednesbury being but one of a series of major incidents!


LOVE IT ! ! ! !   ;D    ;D    ;D    ;D    ;D


Though I'd have thought the best route would have been straight along the Holyhead Road past the Town Hall and Art Gallery, then on up to Moxley and Bilston, rather than get tangled up in the narrow town centre streets. Also, I don't think there's been a sheep farm in Wednesbury for two hundred years . . .   ;D

cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 16, 2020, 04:43:31 AM
Well, with all these new-fangled lorries, omnibuses, and no end to to-doings, can we really blame the poor bloody sheep-farmers for keeping a low profile? (BTW, Loving your The Lucifer Device!)

Sport25ing sent me a clever Ecuador scenario. That reminded me that I promised (threatened?) to write up the end of my Ecudador vs Perú saga. In short(ish) form it was this ...

Both Perú and the US know that Coronel Sáez and his Liga Militar co-conspirators are behind both the indigenous uprising in the Región Amazónica and, ultimately, the 'guerra del 47'. In turn, Ecudaor is well aware that the US intends to start modernizing the militaries of its Rio Pact 'allies' with surplus WW2 equipment. The 'rumour mill' suggests that Republic F-47Ds will soon arrive in Perú to replace CAP Curtiss P-36G fighters by the end of 1947. [1]

So, Ecuador must prompt a Perúvian attack prior to those new equipment arrivals. The problem for Coronel Sáez was a change of government in Britain. The Coronel's refusal to be addressed as Presidente was meant to read as 'modesty' in Ecuador. But Clement Attlee's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, correctly interpreted the title Jefe Supremo de la República del Ecuador for its falagist influence. (Unoffical titles like the 'Líder glorioso' bandied about in the Ecuadorian press only exacerbate PR problems.) The supply of military equipment from Britain quickly dried up.

Pitching la Región Amazónica into chaos has unintended consequences for Quito. Once Perú has lost control of the northernmost part of its territory to rebels, Colombia stepped in. Fearing a repeat of 1932-33, Colombia bombed the Perúvian border post at Caballo Cocha before dropping paratroops on its airfield. There was no contest. CAP airfields were too far south to help (and, in any case, were fully engaged against the FAE). Besides, the FAC had received its superior F-47D Thunderbolt fighters back in 1946. Lima quickly bowed to the inevitable and ceded  all territory along its northern border with Colombia - ie: north of the Rio Napa and then following its junction with the Rio Amazonas east to the border with Brazil.

Cutting to the chase, Ecuador under the Sáez dictatorship was able to undermine Perúvian authority in Amazónica but not to capitalize upon that induced chaos. Perú was forced to surrender territory to Colombia and then negotiated a series of ceasefires with the indigenous tribes. [2] In almost all cases, those ceasefire agreements included promises of Perúvian military withdrawl, pacts of future mutual defence, and the supply of ex-Perúvian weapons to the security forces of these new indigenous entities. Only by risky a renewed conflict with Perú (not to mention international censure on behalf of the newly-freed indigenous states) could Quito hope to benefit from the Perúvian withdrawl. Public opinion in Ecuador correctly gauged that Coronel Sáez and his cronies had dragged the country into another war with Perú to absolutely no purpose.

Within the year, the Ecuadorian economy was in tatters and Jorge Rodríguez Sáez was living as a private citizen on Majorca (as a 'guest' of General Franco). In the aftermath of the Sáez regime, Ecuador had become all but ungovernable. By a slim majority vote, on 01 January 1949, the former country became two newest provinces of the recently reformed República de la Gran Colombia - the Departmento del Ecuador in the interior and the Departmento de Guayaquil on the Pacific coast.

___________________________________________________

[1] CAP was also pressing the US Mission for supply of ex-USAF B-25Js, AT-6Gs, and AT-7s.

[2] The deal Lima struck with the Urarina people of the Loreto Region is generally seen as a tacit admission that Perú was prepared to withdraw from north and central Amazónica.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on June 16, 2020, 06:07:43 AM
Well, with all these new-fangled lorries, omnibuses, and no end to to-doings, can we really blame the poor bloody sheep-farmers for keeping a low profile?


More likely to be the Tiptonites, stealing the sheep, and anything else they could get their hands on . . .    ;D


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on June 16, 2020, 08:10:05 PM
"Sport25ing sent me a clever Ecuador scenario. That reminded me that I promised (threatened?) to write up the end of my Ecudador vs Perú saga. In short(ish) form it was this ..."

Thx  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 17, 2020, 02:23:21 AM
More likely to be the Tiptonites, stealing the sheep, and anything else they could get their hands on . . .

It's a minefield out there! First heavy motor traffic on winding country roads, now its disgruntled, thieving industrial workers rustling sheep  :o

"Sport25ing sent me a clever Ecuador scenario. That reminded me that I promised (threatened?) to write up the end of my Ecudador vs Perú saga. In short(ish) form it was this ..."

Thx  ;D

Going to post your Ecuador scenario?  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 17, 2020, 04:55:47 AM
I had a further sequence of Paladin spin-offs ... but I think I'm Defianted out for the moment  :P

Anyway, I'll finish with these... MAP announced that the supply of Spitfire wing panels would cease, effectively ending Paladin production. Pendeford was already aware that this time was coming. Rolls-Royce's 1942 experimental Mustang Mk.X conversion presaged the imminent arrival of longer-ranging Merlin-powered Mustangs from the US. That event would effectively remove any advantages that the Paladin possessed.

With the MAP announcement, JD North and his team had to decide whether to abandon their fighter design altogether or find alternative wing sets. Reviving the original Defiant wing was mooted but quickly rejected. Even requesting details on the Mustang's laminar-flow wing was briefly considered. In the end, however, the basic wing from a rejected shipboard fighter design was resurrected. [1]

Boulton Paul's initial approach to the Admiralty was with the 'Sea Paladin' but this interim 'hooked Paladin' proposal was rejected (the FAA being convinced that long-range fighters should be 2-seaters). Undaunted, JD North et al worked up a fresh shipboard fighter concept. This new carrier fighter design looked very much like the Paladin but had a shortened fuselage, reduced fuel load, and an entirely new wing. That wing was not 'laminar-flow' but took on some of the features of the Mustang - including its wide-track undercarriage. [2]

The new Boulton Paul wing had a single main spar with stiffening mock spars - one on the inboard leading edge, the other just in front of the aileron/flap hinge line. This simplified wing-folding for stowage aboard aircraft carriers. In contrast with the double-fold of the Seafire, BP's 'Pacific' (as Pendeford dubbed it) had pivoting folds to bring the wings aft alongside the rear fuselage. This approach was thought better-suited the low overhead of British aircraft carrier hangar spaces. An entirely new undercarriage was also devised to get around the Seafire's dreaded landing 'bounce'. However, none of these features represented sufficient advantage over the Seafire to tempt the Admiralty.

Redesigning that 'Pacific' wing for use by a land fighter was a comparatively simple exercise. Rather than attempting to compete with the Spitfire, BP targeted the obsolescing Hurricanes being used by the RAF in the South-East Asian Theatre. Construction would be kept as simple and durable as possible. However, this would be a stressed-skin aircraft avoiding the wood and fabric components of the Hurricane as much as possible.

_______________________

[1] John North considered this an interim design pending acceptance of the more advanced P.103 and P.104 naval fighters.

[2] The wings were all dramatically different in planform. Whereas the Mustang had a 'square-cut' look about it, the BP wing was more triangular - referencing the original Defiant tail and rudder shape for its outline.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 18, 2020, 01:33:31 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2020, 02:47:19 AM
Look what I just stumbled across a photo of:

(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p94-1-jpg.503236/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 29, 2020, 09:15:09 AM
 :D :D  It does say should-have-been, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 01, 2020, 07:47:41 AM
Okay, I'd sworn off Defiants for a bit. And then Sport25ing posted this:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9340.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9340.0)

So, I think it is only fair that Sport25ing shares in at least part of the blame for the following ...

Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Top Defiant I of the 52nd BAP (Bombardirovshchik aviatsionnogo polka or Bomber Aviation Regiment). When assigned to mixed units like the 52nd BAP, the turret fighters flew as Soprovozhdeniye samoleta (escort aircraft). This aircraft was lost to ground fire in late July 1942 while escorting its Sukhoi Su-2 squadron mates over the Tsentralny district of Stalingrad.

Defiant 'White 29' wears the standard RAF camouflage scheme in which it was delivered to Murmansk. The 'presentation' inscription beneath the cockpit reads: "Ot Rabotnikov Vulvergemtona" ('From the Workers of Wolverhampton'). The tailfin slogan is less formal. It reads (appropriately defiantly): "Ya budu kusat'!" ('I will bite!'). Note that this aircraft lacks underwing stars.

Bottom A Defiant I fitted with a Soviet replacement turret. Operating from Vaenga airfield outside Murmansk, this experimental aircraft appears to have seen prior squadron service - an individual aircraft number has clearly been removed from its fin. For unknown reasons, the original fuselage star has also been overpainted and replaced.

This is a trials aircraft with a manually-operated MV-5 dorsal turret. The MV-5 was no direct replacement for the 4-gunned Boulton Paul Type A power-operated turret. The MV-5 was armed with only a single 7.62 mm ShKas with 900 rounds. It was substantially lighter than the British turret and, most importantly, it was available. As the Soviet Union had already been made aware, stocks of British equipment could no longer be relied upon.

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on July 01, 2020, 04:33:33 PM
 ;D

Your Welcome  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 02, 2020, 02:47:50 AM
As previously commented, it's interesting just how much the Shturmovik (early models) like the Defiant looks without the turret (and some wing guns of course):

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/17.jpg)

(http://www.hyperscale.com/images/ospreyca71_profile.jpg)

Going a step further, perhaps there could be a turreted version of the Il-2 in the works...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on July 02, 2020, 05:27:14 AM
I've tried a pixelbash of a Shturmovik with a Defiant turret, but IIRC the turret seemed a little wide for the fuselage.
Will have to see whether the profile still exists (on some hard disk drive or other  :P).

The Soviet Defiants look great!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 03, 2020, 09:51:06 AM
I've tried a pixelbash of a Shturmovik with a Defiant turret, but IIRC the turret seemed a little wide for the fuselage...

Interesting. Of course, that Type A turret is really a wide for the Defiant fuselage too  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 04, 2020, 02:06:08 AM
Well, look here, truth is stranger then fiction: 

(https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/il-2/il2-camo/converted2seaters/il2-turret-profile.jpg)
(https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/il-2/il2-camo/converted2seaters/turret1.jpg)
(https://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/il-2/il2-camo/converted2seaters/turret2.jpg)

In early 1943 a UTK-1 turret (the same type of turret of Il-4s and LI-2s) was trialled.  Despite the good field of fire, the installation was not chosen for production, probably due to the increasing in drag and to the necessity to relocate the fuel tank.

That said, perhaps a whiff version set up[ as a night fighter could be done?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 04, 2020, 11:31:27 AM
Well, look here, truth is stranger then fiction...

Very cool! History is indeed stranger than whiffery!

I was playing with the Il-2 with a Boulton Paul Type A. This is crude but shows that it was do-able.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 05, 2020, 02:59:32 AM
 :smiley:

Does anyone know if you can get a 1/48 Soviet UTK-1 turret?  I know it is possible to get one in 1/72.

(http://armoryhobbyshop.com/image/cache/data/Goods_Images/Armory/1-72%20Air%20Accesories/AR%20ACA7272%20-%20Assembly%20Manual-800x500.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 05, 2020, 09:20:09 AM
Back to the Soviet Defiants ...

Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Britain was quite willing to supply its Soviet ally with equipment in 1941 but demand for Rolls-Royce Merlin engines was outstripping available supplies. With reluctance, the British Air Mission to Moscow informed the Soviet government that current shipments of Boulton-Paul Defiant turret fighters would be the last. Moscow responded to the Head of the BAM that the Soviet Union was happy to accept engineless Defiant airframes. The Soviets could supply their own powerplants.

Top Defiant I(K) experimental aircraft. This Mk.I has been fitted with a Soviet 1,200 hp Klimov M-105PA engines. The origins of this aircraft has been the subject of some debate. However, the yellowish Soviet ALG-1 primer on cowling fittings strongly suggests that this conversion was performed in Russia - Boulton Paul would have almost certainly have applied standard British zinc chromate green primer.

As a 'production' conversion, the Defiant Mk.X(K) had a 1,260 hp Klimov M-105PF engine. [1] This did not imply use of a motor-cannon (for which space was lacking) but rather an attempt to rationalize Soviet engine supplies to the V-VS. The Mk.X(K) was quickly eclipsed by the turretless Mk.XI(K). [2] The latter retained the earlier model's outer wing weapons bay (in which the Soviets mounted a total of 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns. [3]

Bottom A Defiant Mk.XII(K) representing the third series. For unknown reasons,  this particular aircraft has been fitted with what appears to be LaGG-3 tailwheel.

The Mk.XII(K) introduced a more powerful armament. The previous wing arrangement was reversed - outer fuel tanks being carried, the armaments bay being moved inboard. The Soviet-installed forward-firing armament now consisted of two 20 mm ShVak shell guns. The flexible, rear-firing pair of ShKas gun was replaced by a single 12.7 mm Berezin UBK machine gun. Although none are mounted here, wing racks could be fitted for two FAB 250 bombs or RS-82 unguided rockets.

At one stage, it was planned to fit pod-mounted 37 mm Shpitalny Sh-37 cannons to turreted Defiants. This was cancelled in favour of installing 23 mm Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23 guns in underwing 'pan'yes'. Few such conversions were made due to attrition and most surviving V-VS Defiant Is would be converted into 2-seat trainers.

__________________________

[1] This designation was based on an Air Ministry decision to apply 'X' numbers to Soviet-specific Defiants while reserving lower numbers for potential RAF Defiant developments.

[2] Removing the turret resulted in a dramatic shift in the centre of gravity. The c/g was restored through the rearrangement of equipment and increased armour plate protection for the crew and a new mid-fuselage fuel tank.

[3] Oddly, no attempt was ever made to rationalize the turret armaments with Soviet-calibre weapons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 06, 2020, 01:19:27 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 06, 2020, 01:20:30 AM
Any chance of a Defiant with a UTK-1 turret?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 07, 2020, 11:31:26 AM
Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Soviet attempts to replace the Defiant's original turret did not go well. Boulton Paul technicians in Murmansk made an attempt to integrate the bulky Soviet UTK-1 turret. This was applied as a direct replacement for the Boulton Paul Type A turret. The Soviet turret was armed with only one 12.7 mm Berezin UBK machine gun but it was well-protected with armour. Unfortunately, V-VS officials were not impressed with the Boulton Paul installation and the job was passed on to ARM-62, a V-VS repair workshop in Arkhangelsk.

The Arkhangelsk UTK-1 installation was quite different. With field units demanding maximum depression as well as elevation, the turret had to be mounted much higher. Substantial cutouts to the Defiant's upper decking were also needed to gun the gunner the maximum range of movement. The Arkhangelsk depot also opted to adopt the armoured windscreen and canopy from the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik aircraft. This ARM-62 modification was time-consuming to complete but satisfied V-VS requirements while better-protecting the crew. As such, a limited 'production' modification line was initiated at Arkhangelsk.

With their armour protection, the 'series 4' Defiants were very welcome on the Murmansk front at first. However, it soon became obvious that the new turrets had a dramaticly deleterious effect on performance. The 'UTK Defiants' were much slower than their turretless counterparts and general handling suffered. That slower speed made the aircraft more vulnerable to flak, making it very apparent that belly armour protection was lacking. Attrition for the 'UTK Defiants' was high and most surviving crews were happy to be reunited with the turretless 'skinny Defiant'.

That said, the 'UTK Defiants' did their bit defending the Murmansk-Petrozavodsk leg of the Kirov Railway - a vital transit route for lend-lease equipment to the USSR - at a critical time. The turret conversions were quickly ended but the ARM-62 canopy modification was considered a success and was incorporated on the 'series 5' Sovetskiye Difayentov.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 08, 2020, 01:57:26 AM
Thank you. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2020, 11:28:58 AM
Okay, compounding failures here. I started off trying to tweak the Blackburn Botha (call me weird, I like its shape!). Gauging the best-case outcome as turning a sow's ear into a hog's ear, I briskly moved on ...

One Botha variation had been mid-winged. That had me wondering if that layout would be better applied to the de Havilland DH.95 airframe. I decided to give it a bash ... but this is as far as I got.

I can't see how this aircraft would have any advantage over the RW Hudson. On top of that, a DH patrol bomber would've used up UK production space that could be put to more strategic use. Oh well, call this one a fail  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Great-Jimbo on July 26, 2020, 09:26:37 PM
Okay, compounding failures here. I started off trying to tweak the Blackburn Botha (call me weird, I like its shape!). Gauging the best-case outcome as turning a sow's ear into a hog's ear, I briskly moved on ...

One Botha variation had been mid-winged. That had me wondering if that layout would be better applied to the de Havilland DH.95 airframe. I decided to give it a bash ... but this is as far as I got.

I can't see how this aircraft would have any advantage over the RW Hudson. On top of that, a DH patrol bomber would've used up UK production space that could be put to more strategic use. Oh well, call this one a fail  :-[

There are no Fails ---- only experiments that didn't turn out as expected!!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 01, 2020, 09:57:35 AM
No real backstory ... just wondering what a single-seat fighter related to the D4Y1 might look like.

So, here's is the Yokosuka A1Y2 'Yuri' land-based naval interceptor (based on a D4Y2 profile by Vincent Dhorne). I've made the fuselage slightly shorter and much shallower. Wing radiators have been adopter (better ditching characteristics?).

The A1Y2 would be powered by Judy's 1,400 hp Aichi Atsuta AE1P 32 engine. Armament was 2 x synchronized 13 mm Type 2 machine guns with 2 x wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 cannons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 01, 2020, 10:54:52 AM
Looks sleek! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 02, 2020, 05:22:18 AM
 :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Kinda He-112-ish.  :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 05, 2020, 03:57:21 AM
Thanks folks. A bit more on the WW2 Japanese theme ...
_________________________________________________

With war approaching, the Imperial  Japanese Army Air Force (Rikugun Koku Honbu) began rationalizing its procurement approach in 1939. An early consequence was the abandonment of the disappointing Nakajima Ki-43 fighter prototype. In its place, the Rikugun Koku Honbu chose to adopt a land-based version of the Imperial Japanese Navy's very successful 12-shi Carrier-based Fighter. Nakajima was about to begin building the IJN's A6M2 fighters under a license from Mitsubishi and was instructed to derive an Army fighter directly from that aircraft.

As it happened, Nakajima engineers, Niitake and Tajima, were also developing a float-fighter variant of the Mitsubishi fighter. Work on this 'AS-1 project' float-fighter and the new Army type was combined to simply production. From the AS-1 (later designated A6M2-N), the Army fighter inherited its non-folding wing tips [1] and a shortened tailcone which incorporated the lower rudder. The undercarriage was also revised - with softer main wheel tires and a fixed tailwheel. The new Army fighter also eliminated the A6M's sealed flotation cells in the outer wing panels while, more importantly, adding armour protection (for pilot and fuel tanks). Other changes to the Mitsubishi design were kept to a minimum.

The resulting Army Type 1 (1940) Fighter was designated Ki-53 and named Ōtaka (Goshawk). [2] The first true prototype [3] flew in December 1940, with production deliveries beginning in the Summer of 1941. Such was the urgency for new fighters that the Ki-53-Is were delivered in the same paint scheme as Nakajima-built IJN A6M2-N 'Rufe' float fighters - J2 blue-grey overall with black-grey cowlings and canopy deck.

The Ki-53-I was powered by a 925 hp Nakajima Ha-25 radial engine driving a 3-bladed Sumitomo-Hamilton constant-speed propeller. Armament was twin cowl-mounted 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns with another pair of 12.7 mm Ho-103 guns in the wings outside the propeller arc. The Ki-53-I Ko introduced the Navy's 320 litre drop tank for the long-range role.

Top  Nakajima Ki-53-I Ko Ōtaka of the 1st Chutai of the 64th Sentai in the Gulf of Thailand, December 1941. (The 64th Sentai was then flying out of Duong Dong airfield on the island of Phú Quốc in the Japanese-occupied Protectorat français du Cambodge.) This aircraft was lost in a head-on encounter with a 27 Sqn RAF Blenheim IF (the IJAAF pilot evidently believing the British aircraft to be a lightly-armed bomber).

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

As Ki-53 production got into full swing at Nakajima's Ota factory, equipment supply problems began to surface. To accommodate IJN priority for Sumitomo-Hamilton propellers, the constant-speed 3-bladed unit was given up for a two-bladed Sumitomo propeller. The Ha-25 powerplant was tweaked to produce 940 hp but Nakajima was denied immediate access to its own, more powerful Ha-35 variant for the Ki-53. [4] As a result, the Ki-53-I Otsu model had slightly lower performance. To compensate, the armament was changed to four of the lighter, Vickers-type 7.7 mm Type 89 guns. A necessary change, this reduced firepower was an unpopular development with IJA pilots.

Despite its lack of popularity, the Ki-53-I Otsu served successfully throughout the greatest expansion period of the Japanese Empire. The final version of the Ki-53-I was something of a hybrid. It would not be until the end of 1942 that the improved Ki-53-II Ōtaka entered service with their higher-powered Ha-115 engines and heavier armament. The Ki-53-I Hei variant was a Ki-53-I Ko or Otsu model which were, in theory, brought up to Ki-53-II standards. However, in reality, many Ki-53-I Hei models retained their original 7.7 mm Type 89 cowl guns.

Bottom A late-surviving Nakajima Ki-53-I Otsu. This Ōtaka was flown by Kyushiro Ohtake of the 2nd Chutai, 25th Sentai at Hankow, China, November 1943. [5] Sgt Maj Ohtake finally received a replacement Ki-53-II Kai in early 1944.

_____________________________________

[1] More accurately, these non-folding wing tips came from the original Mitsubishi A6M2a Type 0 Model 11 design.

[2] This designations was actually recycled from a short-lived 1939 bombers escort concept (which was replaced by the Ki-49 Donryu-based Ki-58 design).

[3] The first Ki-53 for trials was simply a Nakajima-built A6M2 with its carrier equipment deleted but retaining its other IJN equipment.

[4] The 1,130 hp Ha-35 featured a two-speed supercharger. A revised cowling would be needed and the Ha-35's heavier weight would dictated some fuselage and engine-bearer redesign.

[5] Hankow (Hankou) is now part of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 05, 2020, 04:17:59 AM
Subtle whiff - I like. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 05, 2020, 11:32:22 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 05, 2020, 12:27:56 PM
 :smiley: :smiley:

The Ōtaka may fool a few otaku.  ;D :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 06, 2020, 07:48:47 AM
The Ōtaka may fool a few otaku.

 ;D ;D

Of course, any self-respecting otaku already has at least one wall of his cramped, one-room, micro-apartment completely lined with stacks of unopened, still-cellophaned boxes of this one kit type:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 06, 2020, 07:52:46 AM
'Cang Ying' - The Manchukuo Ki-53-I Gai and Gaishàn

The Nakajima Ki-53-I Gai was another hybrid model based on early-model Ki-53s. Refurbishment work was undertaken by the Nakajima's Manchukuo subsidiary, Manshū. This Harbin-based programme standardized Ki-53-I and Ki-53-I Ko airframes, effectively bringing them to Ki-53-I Otsu standard. By 1943, the Ki-53-I Kai was hardly an up-to-date fighter but it was better than the older Nakajima Ki-27s then in service with the Feixíng Duì' (Manchukuo Imperial Air Force, known to the Japanese as the Dai Manshu Teikoku Kugun). A dozen Ki-53-I Kai conversions were completed at Harbin.

Top Manchukuo Nakajima Ki-53-I Gai of the 3rd Air Unit at Harbin, September 1943. Markings and scheme are standard Manchukuo Imperial Air Force pattern - overall pale grey or (as in this case) clear-coated aluminum finish with Manchukuo roundels above and below wings. This aircraft carries two 'bird' victory markings beneath its cockpit, suggesting that it is the mount of a Japanese exchange pilot (which may also explain the katakana letter 'ta' on the rudder).

In late 1944, follow-on Ki-53-I Gaishàn modifications were introduced. For the most part, this involved stripping Ki-53-I Gai's of non-essential equipment - including most armour, wing guns, and often radio transmitters. The object was to improve Ki-53-I Gai performance sufficient to allow the Manchukuo fighters to intercept high-flying American B-29 bombers. Ki-53-I Gaishàn armament was standarized with twin, cowl-mounted 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns (replacing the original 7.7 mm Type 89 synchronized guns). Eight Ki-53-I Gaishàn upgrades were completed (these surviving aircraft being bolstered by six ex-IJAAF Ki-53-IIs).

Improving the Breed - The Nakajima Ki-53-II Ōtaka

As recounted in the last post, Nakajima engineers had hoped to install the firm's improved NK1F (Sakae 21) engine in the Ki-53-I. Atsushi Tajima pursued that option and finally received approval to proceed with his Ki-52-II development in the Autumn of 1942. The Nakajima NK1F produced 1,115 hp thanks to its 2-speed supercharger, resulting in worthwhile gains in performance. Tajima had also been tweaking the airframe. Many of the airframe changes were inspired by Mitsubishi's A6M3 Type 0 Model 32, including its clipped wingtips. The Ki-53-II also introduced a fully-retractable tailwheel [1] to refine the design aerodynamically.

The pre-series Ki-53-IIs were followed by full-production Ki-53-II Ko Ōtakas (differing mainly in some simplification and parts reduction). The Ki-53-II Ko was identifiable by its repositioned exhaust ports but, in theory, the 'Ko could also be fitted with outer wing bomb racks. In practice, such bomb racks were only fitted to Ki-53-II Otsus, a variant which eliminated the wing-mounted 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns to save weight. Few of the 'Otsu models were built, with most operating in South-East Asia against British forces.

Bottom Nakajima Ki-53-II Ko of the 64th Sentai based at Mingaladon Airfield in Burma, March 1943. The tawny brown disruptive camouflage seems to have been done locally (likely using captured paint and applied over a fairly well-worn dark green scheme). Note that this aircraft has been fitted in the field with a (back-up?) telescopic gun sight.

____________________________________________________________

[1] Consideration was given to reintroducing full main wheel covers but this was overtaken by events. Reports from the field suggested even larger, low-pressure tires would be useful. Instead of cleaner main wheel wells, the Ki-53-II ended up with fatter main wheel tires which protruded even more.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 08, 2020, 10:33:35 AM
The Nakajima Ki-53-III Ōtaka was to combine features of the cannon-armed Ki-53-II Kai and the Mitsubishi A6M5 naval fighter. However, this modest improvement was overtaken by the more ambitious Ki-53-IV. This model was to be fitted with a much more powerful engine - the Nakajima NBD. The NBD - or Ha-52 as it was designated in the unified system - was part of a proposed family of twin-row engines using the cylinders from the 18-cylinder NBA Homare. The Ha-52 was the 14-cylinder member of this family [1] displacing 27.9 litres (1,703 cid). In displacement, the Ha-52 differed little from the earlier Sakae but the new engine was meant to generate over 1,550 hp for take-off.

A challenge for Atsushi Tajima's design team was the rather higher dry weight of the Ha-52 - 690 kgs versus 535 kgs for the Sakae. To restore the c/g it was decided to move the cockpit as far aft as possible. [2] This allowed for a fuselage fuel tanks and permitted the installation of larger-calibre gun cowls. For production Ki-53-IVs this meant twin 20 mm Ho-5 cannon synchronized to fire through the propeller arc along with another wing-mounted pair. [3] A sturdier main undercarriage was also adopted, complete with full wheel covers. With design complete, a Ki-53-II airframe was converted on the production line into a representative a Ha-52 powered Ki-53-IV.

The first flight of the Ki-53-IV conversion was delay until November 1944 when a flight-worthy Ha-52 engine was finally made available. This maiden flight was brief and disastrous. Despite its fan-cooling, the engine began overheating while taxiing and temperatures did not drop noticeably at airspeed. The test pilot elected to terminate the flight but, by then, the immature engine was beginning to smoke. On approach, the Ha-52 burst into flames, obscuring the pilot's vision. The Ki-53-IV landed heavily and broke its back.

Top The Ki-53-IV conversion as it appeared during its test flight. Despite its radical transformation, the first Ki-53-IV was not considered a Genkei (prototype), rather it was simply a new Kata (model) of Ōtaka. As a result, the sole Ki-53-IV was painted in a standard green-over-grey paint scheme (and lacked the orange undersides applied to genuine prototypes).

Nakajima Ki-53-V Otaka - Salvaging a Sow's Ear

The urgency for more fighters capable of intercepting American B-29 bombers blinded Rikugun Koku Honbu (Imperial Japanese Army Air Force) planners to the risks of new engine types. With Nakajima now focusing on Ki-84 Hayates, work on the series Ki-53-IV was contracted to the Tachikawa Hikoki K.K. Production of the Ki-53-IV was ordered before the inadequacies of the Ha-52 engine were apparent. Mechanical shortcomings might be overcome but the Ha-52 also proved only capable of produced about 1,350 hp. The fatally-flawed Ha-52 programme was cancelled, but this left Ki-53-IV airframes rolling down Tachikawa's Sunagawa production line with no powerplants waiting for them. One suggested alternative engine for the Ōtaka was Mitsubishi's latest model Kinsei, the Ha-112 (unified Ha-33). This seemed ideal - the engine produced 1,560 hp and weighed less than the Ha-52. Alas, the Rikugun Koku Honbu had already ear-marked available Ha-112s for Kawasaki.

With fighters desperately needed at the front, the decision was made to fit the engineless airframes with the one available radial - the old Sakae. The resulting Ki-53-V was something of a disappointment. Visibility from the aft-placed cockpit was inferior - particularly on the ground. Nor could the reduced-power Ki-53-V carry the planned heavier armament. However the new model had some advantages over the preceding Ōtakas. The fuselage fuel tank meant that external drop tanks were rarely needed. Ki-53-Vs could, instead, act as fighter-bombers with bombs slung from their belly rack. The first Ki-53-Vs were Ki-53-V Ko models armed with 20 mm cowl guns but lacked wing guns to save weight but that soon changed.

The Ki-53-V Otsu followed, based on less complete Ki-53-IV airframes. The 'Otsu returned to the Ki-53-II armament of four 12.7 mm Ho-103 Type 1 machine guns. The Ki-53-V Hei had podded 30 mm Ho-155 guns but remained a prototype (performance suffering due to both weight and excessive drag). The final production model was the Ki-53-V Tei with all-up weight reduced by eliminating some equipment (including bomb rack fittings). [4] This allowed the wing-mounted 20 mm Ho-5 cannons to be reinstated (the cowl guns remained 12.7 mm Ho-103s). Some Ki-53-V Otsu models were later upgraded to Ki-53-V Tei standards as the Ki-53-V Kai. Not surprisingly the Ki-53-V Tei and Ki-53-V Kai proved underpowered for their intended interceptor role. Many were stripped and disarmed for Shinten Seikutai ramming attacks on B-29s (albeit with limited success). Other Ki-53-Vs joined earlier-model Ōtaka in kamikaze attacks on Allied shipping.

Bottom Tachikawa-built Ki-53-V Ko being prepared for a Shinten Seikutai attack on B-29 bombers. This fighter came from the Akeno flying school (whose crest it still bears on its rudder). This aircraft has been stripped of its radio, gun sight, and cowl guns in preparation for its final mission. Note the replacement canopy hood. [5]

____________________________________________________________

[1] The third member of this family was the 22-cylinder, 2,500 hp Ha-51 which only reached the prototype stage.

[2] This movement was limited by the fuselage construction break inherited from the original Mitsubishi A6M design. The windscreen and canopy adopted were virtually identical to those of Nakajima's Ki-84 Hayate.

[3] Alternative armaments considered were four wing-mounted 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns or a single 30mm Ho-155 Model 1 cannon slung beneath each wing.

[4] [5] Relatively few Ki-53-V Tei Ōtakas were completed before the Sunagawa assembly section of the Tachikawa plant was bombed out by US Navy aircraft on 17 Feb 1945.

[6] The original sliding hood may have been prone to sticking. The object of the Shinten Seikutai Tai was not suicide. Where possible, pilots were expected to bail out just prior to impact or, if lucky, directly afterwards.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 13, 2020, 03:15:35 AM
Kawasaki Ki-174 - the 'Special Attack' Sokei

This one isn't a whif so much as an 'it-might-have-looked-like-that'.

In 1944, the Kawasaki Kokuki Kogyo K.K. completed a 'least mod' conversion of its Ki-48 Sokei medium bomber for the kamikaze role. This Ki-48-II KAI (aka Type Tai-Atari) was armed with 800 kg of explosives and manned by a crew of two or three. Never a terribly impressive performer, the Sokei would also have provided a fair-sized target on kamikaze missions. Nevertheless, the Ki-48-II KAI were assigned to the Imperial Japanese Army's 'special attack units' - the Tokubetsu Kogeki Tai or 'Tokkotai'. The limitations of the modified bombers was made apparent on operations.

In late January 1945, the British Pacific Fleet launched a series of attacks by carrier aircraft against Japanese-held oil refineries at Palembang. On 29 January, a Japanese counter-attack was arranged. Taking part were seven Ki-48s of an Imperial Japanese Army Tokkotai. None of these special attack Sokeis succeeded in reaching the British carriers. All were shot down by intercepting Fleet Air Arm fighters or Royal Navy anti-aircraft fire. Clearly, the Ki-48 required a higher performance to be of any use to the Tokkotai.

The Kawasaki Ki-174 was a dedicated kamikaze version of the Sokei. The Ki-174 was to be a single-seater but I'm not clear if these aircraft were to be new-builds or radical modifications of existing Ki-48 airframes. The latter seems more probable. My problem is that I have absolutely no idea what the nature of the planned modifications was to be. So, the whif part is just making up all that part ...

For my version of the Ki-174, I decided to completely remove the raised portion Ki-48's upper decking - complete with the rear radio-operator/gunner and navigator/gunner position as well as the cockpit. With the bombardier's position also removed, the cockpit could be repositioned lower in the fuselage. The pilot's view to the sides would be greatly compromised but this lowered cockpit would also be better-protected from the sides by the mass of the engines. Views directly forward would be excellent and a new, armoured nose cap further protects the cockpit from anti-aircraft fire.

The profiles were based on artwork from a Hasegawa Ki-48. For the lower profile, I've included a stand-off fuse mounted on a pole (which apparently was employed on some of the built kamikaze Ki-48-II KAIs). I left the pole off the upper profile (imagining a different requirement - like greater penetration of target ships before detonation).

The lower profile features the all-over light grey-green (#1 Hairyokushoku) scheme seen on many Ki-48s. The other profile has the upper portion of its Hairyokushoku scheme overpainted with a maritime scheme of blue-grey with light-blue patterning. I'm calling my imaginary camouflage pattern  Sayuri (Orange Lily). In hanakotoba, the Japanese meaning of flowers, the Sayuri represents hatred and revenge ... which seemed appropriate to the Ki-178's desperate role.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 17, 2020, 07:39:22 AM
Chung-tao F-84 Lièfeng (Gale)

When Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan in 1949, their future was anything but secure. The Generalissimo had a grand plan - Project National Glory - to reconquer Mainland China but no way to bring such a scheme to fruition. Worse, a previously sympathetic United States had written off the KMT as hopelessly corrupt. In Washington, preparations were underway to grant diplomatic recognition to Communist China.

That shift in US favour had been anticipated by KMT planners. While frontline equipment in the Civil War had been American-supplied, the Republic of China Air Force had also stockpiled captured Japanese aircraft in case the US cut off support. The best of these aircraft was the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate (Gale) fighter. In 1947, it was decided to relocate some Japanese aircraft safely away from Civil War action for operation as advanced fighter-trainers. Suitable Nakajima Ki-43 fighters were sent to Hainan while the Ki-84s went to Taiwan.

For ROCAF service, the Hayate was redubbed the Chung-tao F-84 Lièfeng. [2] Refurbishment of what were to be 'TF-84s' proceeded slowly on Taiwan. Ex-Japanese Army technicians did much of the work but parts and equipment were lacking. With some parts-robbing, two series of refurbished Nakajimas were ready for fairly reliable service by the Summer of 1948. By then, the situation on the Mainland was so dire, it was decided to equip the Lièfengs for combat use. As such, TF-84As became Lièfeng-A fighters and TF-84Bs Lièfeng-B fighter-bombers.

Despite plans to refit the Nakajimas with US equipment, most retained their Japanese fittings. An exception was in their cowl armament, where ammunition shortages dictating replacing Japanese 12.7 mm Ho-103 machine guns with similarly-sized American .50-calibre M2 weapons. The F-84A fighters retained the twin 20 mm Ho-5 wing guns, but only by stripping the cannons from F-84Bs. These Lièfeng-Bs then also received .50-cal wing guns. The F-84Bs were also fitted with wing racks for two Japanese 100 or 250 kg bombs. All Lièfengs were assigned to the ROCAF's new 10th (Reserve) Tactical Fighter Group based at Tainan.

Top Lièfeng-A - an F-84A of the 101st Fighter Squadron, 10 RTFS, at Tainan AB in late 1949. This fully-refurbished 'A' is in all-over lacquered metal finish with a flat-black anti-glare panel. Markings are ROC roundels in six positions, tail stripes, and fuselage-side 'buzz' number. Individual aircraft serial and details are recorded on the tail fin. On the cowling is the 'Roaring Tiger' emblem of 101 FS. [3]

Initial plans were that 10 RTFS Lièfengs would act in concert in the defence of the island of Taiwan. The F-84Bs would act as strike aircraft against ChiCom shipping and any surviving ground forces while the F-84As would fly top cover. The the Autumn of 1948, it was decided that F-51Ds flying from Chiayi AB would fulfil the escort role and all Lièfeng-As would now be fitted with bomb racks. These would be US racks for carrying American 250 lb bombs. The Lièfeng-Bs would retain their Japanese racks until supplies of IJAAF bombs were exhausted.

Bottom Lièfeng-B - an F-84B of the 102nd Fighter Squadron, 10 RTFS, at Tainan AB in late Summer 1948. This aircraft has received a less thorough refurbishment than F590, above. Upper surfaces remain olive green while the lower areas are bare metal. [4] As an interim, F614 has had its serial applied beneath the stablizers. Note that this F-84B has been fortunate enough to retain its wireless set (many Lièfeng-Bs having given up their R/Ts for fuller F-84A refurbishment).

On the cowl of this F-84B is the 102 FS 'tian shu' (sky rat) motif. This bat symbol does not indicate a nocturnal role. Instead this flying animal is symbol of good luck and longevity. [5]

_______________________

[1] Beginning in August 1948, much of the remaining ROCAF were relocated, operating from bases in Taiwan.

[2] 'Chung-tao' is the Chinese pronounciation of Nakajima. 'Lièfeng' translates roughly as gale-force wind.

[3] The tiger represents bravery. Also, the Chinese character for tiger - 'hu' - sounds the same as 'hù', which means 'protect'.

[4] Leaving metal skins bare was a rather dodgy practice when dealing with Japanese alloys. However, as time permitted, the F-84Bs were fully stripped and properly coated for protection against oxidization.

[5] The Chinese character for bat - fú - sounds and looks similar to fú (good fortune). Two bats symbolize 'double happiness' - so this 'sky rat' motif has been repeated on the starboard side of the cowling.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on August 17, 2020, 08:48:05 AM
The F-84/Ki-84 in natural metal and Nationalist Chinese markings look awesome!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 17, 2020, 10:16:43 AM
Are you sure there's an element of whiffery in this? ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 18, 2020, 01:52:24 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 18, 2020, 01:53:53 AM
Thanks Frank and Greg!

Are you sure there's an element of whiffery in this? ???

Venerable Vombatus: Only just.  The ROCAF did hold stocks of Ki-43s and Ki-84s in case American aid was withheld/withdrawn. AFAIK, no serious rebuilds were done and these Japanese fighters weren't relocated from the Mainland.

Washington was preparing to recognize Peking/Beijing ... until Communist China intervened in Korea. (The PRC and its apologists like to play the victim on China's 1950-1972 isolation but, really, it was an 'own goal'.) The US turned its support back to Chiang's despotic regime only reluctantly.

BTW, I screwed up one of my footnotes which was to have commented on "Ex-Japanese Army technicians did much of the work ..."

The Nationalists treated Japanese POWs quite well (a gambit which made postwar Tokyo positively disposed towards Taipei). But, after the Emperor's announcement, Japanese troops were said to have "ceased resisting" rather than to have "surrendered". Honour was maintained but those Japanese soldiers lost the protections of the Geneva Convention. As a result, the Nationalists weren't forced to repatriate skilled Japanese as quickly as they did (the Soviets abused that distinction but so too did the US and British - who retained large numbers of Japanese troops for armed security and reconstruction work).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 18, 2020, 10:02:15 AM
Yeah, but nobody flew the 84 as well as Lt. Usagi.
art by Steve Gallacci.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 19, 2020, 02:20:49 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2020, 03:48:37 AM
Yeah, but nobody flew the 84 as well as Lt. Usagi.
art by Steve Gallacci.

Love the cowl markings  ;D  Squeezing those ears into a flying helmet must've been a trick though  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 23, 2020, 02:49:52 AM
This one is a teaser for a South China Sea scenario that I'm working on ...
________________________________

The S-70PHF Firehawk represents two, close-related types of Sikorsky helicopters delivered to the Philippines Navy (PN). The S-70PHFs are ex-USN SH-60B Seahawks which have been stripped and rebuilt to meet Philippine needs.

A total of ten S-70PHF Firehawks were delivered to the Philippines. Of these, four are fully-equipped by United Rotorcraft with wildfire-fighting belly tank kits. These external water tanks hold 3,785 litres (1,000 US Gallons) plus 114 lires (30 US Gal) of foam retardant. The water tank can be refilled at the hover using an integrated, retractable water pump-snorkel.

On this fire-fighting S-70PHF-1 variant, a distinctive feature is the four-leg landing gear. Whereas UH-60A-based Firehawk use the standard Black Hawk tailwheel, the S-70PHF Firehawk are S-60B based. In the case of the S-70PHF-1, the usual mid-fuselage 'tail' gear has been duplicated - allowing roll-over fitting (and unfitting) of the bulky Simplex belly tank ... or, at least, that's the story.

Top A Sikorsky S-70PHF-1 Firehawk showing its extended, 4-point landing gear but not fitted with the belly water tank. [1] Note that Firehawk 820 ('F1') is in hi-viz markings, complete with full-colour Philippines roundel and Philippine Navy badge. For undisclosed reasons, the Naval Air Group crest on the tail is a lo-viz decal.

The S-70PHF-2 variant is very similar to the S-70PHF-1. The S-70PHF-2 can be fitted with extended main landing gear legs and has water tank attachment lugs [2]. However, this variant has the standard single, SH-60B-style mid-fuselage rear landing gear leg. The S-70PHF-2 can perform similar missions to the S-70PHF-1 - mounting the Simplex belly tank; carrying up to 13 fully-equipped troops (or fire crew members); operating as a two-litter medevac aircraft; or flying back-up search-and-rescue missions.

In its 'short-legged' guise, the S-70PHF-2 relies on its cargo hook and portside bubble window to facilitate water bucket operations. When not carrying 'Bambi Buckets', the cargo hook is capable of supporting 4,080 kg (9,000 lbs) of slung cargo at speeds up to 120 knots.

Bottom A Sikorsky S-70PHF-2 Firehawk with original, short main gear. Firehawk 828 ('F9') is in lo-viz markings - including monochrome roundels and PN badges as well as paler grey script and serials. This aircraft has yet to have the NAG crest applied to its vertical tail. Pylons are permanently fitted to accommodate long-range fuel tanks as required.

So, Filipino Firehawk ... but there's more to the story. Stay tuned for the scenario  ;)

____________________________

[1] This aircraft has also had is nose-mounted searchlight temporarily removed.

[2] The extended undercarriage legs would be one of two kits taken from stores or 'borrowed' from an unserviceable S-70PHF-1. Once the latter was no longer AOG, the S-70PHF-1 would have its legs restored.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 23, 2020, 03:19:32 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 31, 2020, 10:13:32 AM
The aircraft chosen as an emergency replacement for RAF Coastal Command's Blackburn Botha was the de Havilland DH.91P - a maritime patrol derivative of the DH.91 Albatross airliner. [1] This MAP decision was based on two key factors - de Havilland was an aircraft maker without a priority combat type in production, and the DH.91P's mainly wooden construction reduced use of 'strategic' materials required. In RAF service, the DH.91P patrol aircraft would be named Hirta. [2]

The DH.91P Hirta Mk.I used the tailplane, wings, and powerplants from its airliner predecessor mated to an entirely new fuselage. This fuselage used the same moulded plywood construction as the Albatross but with the wings moved up to the mid-ming position patrol aircraft. The new wing position also dictated changes to the main undercarriage - the wings of which now turned 90 degrees to fit into the sides of the bomb bay (the upper portions of the wheels passing through the wing structure).

Like many new types, the DH.91P Hirta Mk.I suffered from a range of teething problems. The main issue was adequate cooling of its four air-cooled Gipsy King inverted V-12 engines. There was also concern over the overly complex undercarriage mechanism (although this landing gear presented surprisingly little difficulty in RAF service). An attempting a improved cooling was made in the Hirta Mk.IA modification which replaced the inverse cooling flow of the original Gipsy Twelve with direct air flow from large chin intakes. This helped somewhat with cooling but, in the meantime, MAP had decided to reduce the number of aero-engines in service. The Gipsy King was to be cut and DH was asked to find an alternative.

The more familiar DH.109 Hirta Mk.II was, of course, powered by twin radial engines. Fitting the former DH.91P airframe with modified nacelles from the DH.95 Flamingo airliner solved two problems. First the two 930 hp Bristol Perseus XVI radials had no cooling issues. Second, new main undercarriage members now retracted backwards into the nacelles - freeing inboard wing space for fuel and enlarging the bomb bays. But that is all  another story ...
_________________________

[1] The DH.91P Hirta was to augment the excellent aircraft but (being US-made) rather expensive Lockheed Hudson.

[2] Named after the largest island in the St Kilda archipelago, on the western edge of Scotland.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on August 31, 2020, 10:42:14 AM
Ooohhh I do soooo like that.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 01, 2020, 02:09:08 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 06, 2020, 10:06:17 AM
Playing with Panzers (Part One)

I'm calling this one the 'Pz Kpfw III ausf I (v)' - the 'v' being for verstarkt (or uparmoured). [1] The idea sprang from noticing that the width of the Panzer III and Soviet T-34 were almost the same (2.90 m versus 3.00 m including fenders). [2] From that, the thought occurred that a T-34's heavy, sloping nose armour - or, at least, the top portion of it - could be grafted on to a Panzer III.

I'm not suggesting that such a mélange would make the Pz Kpfw III a match for the T-34. Rather, that this grafted Russian nose might have lengthened the Panzer IIIs primacy in the Western Desert (assuming availability by the Spring of 1942). The main gun would be the long 5 cm KwK 38 L/42, the hull machine gun would be the 7.92 mm KpfwMG 320(d) - the T-34's DT gun modified to fire standard German ammunition.

I'm imagining this as a limited emergency programme based on armour parts gleaned from destroyed T-34 in the field. That armour would then be incorporated into selected damaged Panzer IIIs undergoing major rebuilds. [3] The T-34 plating would be welded in place around the driver and radio-operator's compartment. Sloped side armour aft of that compartment would be riveted in place - providing some added ballistic protection from side shots but blowing clear when struck by blast from below (eg, from anti-tank mines).

I found this idea appealing ... but I'm not really sure if such a mod programming would have been worth the effort for the Germans. Fun concept to play with though  ;)

____________________________________

[1] Apparently, the Allies actually reported a 'Pz Kpfw III ausf I' variant although, in reality, the Germans didn't seem to use the letter 'I' in their type designations.

[2] The 0.10 m (4 inch) difference disappears if the T-34 fenders are ignored and the overhang extends out for the full width of the Pz Kpfw III tracks.

[3] Obviously, Panzer IIIs with battle damage to their frontal armour would be priority candidates for this conversion.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 07, 2020, 01:42:28 AM
Reminds me a bit of this proposal:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/unnamed_2.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/35_ncm_pzkfw_iv_w1466_DSCN0323.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 07, 2020, 06:43:29 AM
Thanks Greg. I always liked that sloped-armour 'Kruppvorschlag' concept. Apparently, the expected weight was too great for the PzKpfw IV running gear. That got me wondering about alternative suspensions for the Panzer IV ...

Playing with Panzers (Part Two)

I got on to the notion of a PzKpfw IV development which anticipates the Panther. My first stab used four paired wheels from the Panther with gaps between ... but that looked very peculiar on the Panzer IV. Instead, I went with this 'Pz Kpfw IV ausf N (VR)' - Verschachtelte Rollen meaning interleaved road wheels. Main gun is the 7,5 cm KwK 40 L/43.

The idea was a Famo-type suspension using single Panther roadwheels on each axle. Even still, I had to omit one Panther axle per side to shorten the track length. Does it work visually? I don't know. And it gives you all the disadvantages of the interleaved Famo suspension without the benefits of the Panther's wider tracks

Anyway, I pressed on with the Pz Kpfw IV ausf P (neuer Art). This later model features both Turm- und Seitenschürzen - the latter obscuring a new 33° sloped glacis plate. I figured that such bow armour alone was a lighter compromise solution compared with the full sloped hull of the 'Kruppvorschlag'.

My ausf P has the longer 7,5 cm KwK 40 L/48 gun. Of course, none of this would put the Pz Kpfw IV on par with the T-34. But I read somewhere that, on average, German tank crews could loose three rounds for every shot from the cramped, 2-man turret of the T-34/76. Maybe that and a little more protection evens the odds? Daumen drücken!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on September 07, 2020, 06:56:31 AM
That is nice work.
With the Famo suspension, the move to wider tracks would have been part of the design I would have thought, but that then leads to engine power and transmission capabilities.

Still, certainly worthy of putting on a build list of future projects as today's shiny object :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 09, 2020, 07:44:46 AM
This one is a rip-off of one of Carlos' ideas - basically turning an Sd.Kfz.251 into a full-track APC. The idea here is that the Sd.Kfz. 6/Sd.Kfz. 251 track system could have created a full-track substitute for the RW 1-tonne Sd.Kfz.250 series while retaining maximum commonality with the parent '251 vehicles.

Built by Büssing-NAG, the Sd.Kfz.252/1 was a leichter Schützenpanzerwagen (or light armoured troop-carrier). Originally, the vehicle family was referred to as the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 252(K) - for Volleketten (or full track) - to distinquish it from the rival Hanomag-built Sd.Kfz.250(H) - for Halbketten (or half track). Power for the Sd.Kfz.252 came from a 100 ps Maybach HL42 TRKM engine. [1]

BTW: The image is based on an Sd.Kfz 251 sideview by Serge Andreyev.
__________________________

[1] This inline 6-cylinder being mounted back-to-front by comparison with the RW Sd.Kfz.250.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on September 09, 2020, 10:42:25 AM
I think once you stick the engine (any engine...) in the crew section, you'll end up with far fewer troops. Not much more room (if not less!) than my Gatoto Blindado (https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=8057.msg144783#msg144783). If you supersize it (1.5x bigger) it should have room.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 10, 2020, 08:44:15 AM
You may well be right Frank ... and I certainly haven't measured anything out. I plonked the HL42 TRKM in beside the driver (rather than on the centre line as per RW Sd.Kfz.250). Is there actually room to do that? Dunno.

For the RW Sd.Kfz.250, accommodation was for a crew of 2+4 (driver, commander, and a recce section of 4). But my 'box' is based on a shortened Sd.Kfz.251, which had a crew of 12 - driver, commander, and ten Panzergrenadiers). Based solely on that, I figured that I have room for 5 (and their gear) behind the driver/engine compartment (including the previously displaced vehicle commander). But that may have been over-optimistic  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 12, 2020, 02:41:07 AM
Well lookie here...Amusing Hobby releasing a new 1/35 kit:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-caX_6TNJUNY/X1tbl8zGrXI/AAAAAAADCd4/lyOOv_J8Ksc2b7yDFOxwjAETspVuZJlaACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Pz.IV%2BAusf.K%2BAmusing%2BHobby.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 12, 2020, 08:58:28 AM
Well lookie here...Amusing Hobby releasing a new 1/35 kit:

Nice!! And with all that dust, this puppy could any kind of suspension hidden there  :smiley:

This one got very wordy. Apologies, for that ...  :-[

______________________________________

Late in 1939, Krupp had begun work on a dedicated self-propelled gun designated Sd.Kfz. 165/1, which was based upon the Pz.Kpfw IV hull. This 'Geschützwagen IV' was a sophisticated vehicle - complete with a dismountable turret which could be emplaced as a pillbox. But, by 1941, growing frontline urgencies suggested a quicker-to-build interim model was required. Accordingly, a much simpler vehicle was devised by Altmärkische Kettenwerk GmbH (Alkett) with a prototype rapidly rebuilt from an early-production model Panzer III Ausf.E tank hull. This experimental vehicle had a fixed casement armed with a 7.5 cm FK 16 n.A. gun [1] with limited traverse.

The prototype Sd.Kfz. 144/1 would eventually lead to the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B heavy assault gun. [2] But - especially for desert warfare - an even simpler vehicle was desirable. The Afrika Korps had anticipated the sIG 33B and built its own - these crude converions were simply turretless Pz.Kpfw IIIs with gun shields protecting the front of an open fighting compartment. The DAK crews were exposed to shell splinters but spared the stiffling heat of a fully-enclosed armoured vehicle. Alkett's design staff felt that they could do better. This would lead to the pared-down Sd.Kfz. 144/3 which would gain fame as the Pz.Sfl. III in the battles for the Western Desert. [3]

Pz.Sfl. III (or Sd.Kfz. 144/3) - A Lighter Geschützwagen for the DAK

DAK combat experience had resulted in priorities shifting toward what would now be called direct fire support vehicles. Accordingly, the Sd.Kfz. 144/3 design was adjusted to accommodate a range of field pieces. The casemate gave way to an open-topped compartment enclosed by four armoured walls. The forward wall was surmounted by a traversing gun shield. The rear wall featured a sliding door allowing access to separate ammunition stowage racks situated over the engine compartment. The bolt-on gun mount could accommodate various guns [4] but the most common type was a German variant of the French 'soixante-quinze'.

Back in 1939 - in the aftermath of Überfall auf Polen - the Wehrmacht held over a thousand French-made 75 mm armata wz.1897 field guns captured from the Polish Army. [5] Redesignated FK 97(p), most of these guns went into storage since the Germans considered these WWI-vintage cannons obsolete. [6] The Wehrmacht also found itself in possession of Polish-devised anti-tank rounds designed for the French gun. Trials with the Polish armour-piercing round revealed its performance to be generally inferior to the then-experimental 5 cm Pak 38 from Rheinmetall-Borsig.

With the Fall of France, many more Mle.1897 guns came into the German fold. With them came French 75 mm rounds - both AP and a high-explosive anti-tank shell. Despite a much-reduced muzzle velocity, the Mle.1897 firing a HEAT round had a slight advantage over the Pak 38 at longer ranges. It wasn't much of an edge but the Mle.1897 guns and their ammunition was readily available. Putting these guns on a self-propelled 'Waffenträger' eliminated the disadvantages of elderly, horse-drawn carriages. The resulting Sd.Kfz. 144/3 was dispatched to North Africa as the 7.5 cm (f) Panzer Selbstfahrlafette auf Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.J. Due to its bulky fighting compartment, the DAK dubbed their new SP 'Klobig Julius' - 'Hefty Julius'.

Despite its '(f)' for Französisch designation suffix, the earliest Pz.Sfl. III Ausf.J were actually armed with the 7.5 cm FK 97(p) version of the 'soixante-quinze' (these guns having been stored fairly close to the Alkett facility in Berlin-Borsigwalde). As 'Klobig Julius' conversions hit their stride, reinforcing barrel bands and Solothurn muzzle brakes were introduced (similar to those for the new, hybrid 7.5 cm PaK 97/38 anti-tank gun). The third production series began introducing rebuilt ex-French 7.5 cm FK 231(f) pieces (the best of the stored Polish FK 97(p) guns having been picked over by then). Working in concert with long-barrelled Pz.Kpfw. III Ausf.J tanks, it was the Pz.Sfl. III which restored the balance after the appearance of British M3 Grant tanks armed with 75 mm guns.

_________________________________________

[1] This 7.5 cm Feldkanone 16 (neuer Art) was a rebarrelled 7.7 cm FK 16 from WWI. Otherwise unmodernized, the 'n.A.' was rechambered from the WWI 77 x 230R round to the WW2 Wehrmacht standard 75 x 200R.

[2] This carrier vehicle (Waffenträger) was named for its sIG 33 infantry gun main armament.

[3] The Sd.Kfz. 144/2 was to be a Sturmpanzer development of the sIG 33B casement vehicle.

[4] Other gun types included the originally-planned 7.5 cm FK 16 n.A. or 10.5 cm leFH 18/2 L/28 howitzer. Planned but not pursued were German 7.5 cm FK 18 or FK 38 pieces and the ex-Polish 7.5 cm FK 02/06(p) (aka 75 mm armata wz.02/06). The 8.38cm FK 273(e) (aka 18-pounder Mk.IIPA) was briefly considered for use in Libya but captures of British 18-pounder ammunition proved comparatively rare.

[5] These ex-French Mle.1897 guns had originally been imported during the Polish-Soviet War of 1919–20.

[6] In 1941, 80 of these stored armata wz.1897 field guns would be sold to Romania.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 13, 2020, 02:11:30 AM
 :smiley:

Whilst you're on a Panzer III theme, how about an anti-aircraft version?

Similarly, some other inspiration might be some foreign operated (post war probably) SU-76i and/or SG-122.  These were versions of the German Panzer III and/or StuG III converted into Soviet self-propelled gun armed with either the 76.2mm S-1 tank gun or the the M-30 122mm howitzer.  Maybe some sent to Syria?  Or even odder, how about some sent to Israel for a Soviet supported Israel...(whole new scenario there... ;)).

(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/sovger6.jpg)

(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/sovger5.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 14, 2020, 10:26:54 AM
Hmmm ... I was kinda stuff in the Western Desert but now I'm tempted to broaden horizons  :smiley:

Meanwhile, I have been distracted by a certain 'Diminutive Brunette Canid':
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9468.msg176686#new (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9468.msg176686#new)

________________________________________________________

Scammell Scout R110 Heavy Artillery Tractor

Scout series vehicles were the first Scammell production types to employ Electro Magnetic Field Effect on Mass (EMFEM). Based on Scammell's conventionally-wheeled Pioneer R100 of 1935, the Scout R110 was developed in response to a British Army requirement for a range of heavy lorries - beginning with the R110 Artillery Tractor in 1936, the S2 Recovery Vehicle in 1937, and 30-ton TRMU30 Tank Transporter in 1938.

All Scammell Scout lorries were powered by a 125 bhp Gardner 6LW-G diesel genset driving Commercial Lift Generation EMFEMs. These engines were 510 cubic inch (8.37 L) 6-cylinders (comprised of 2 x Gardner 3-cylinder units on an inline crankcase). The alternator/generator for the CLG units sat directly beneath the crew cab.

Depicted is a Scout R110 Mk.IIA of the 54th Super-Heavy Regiment, Royal Artillery. The former 54 Hvy. Regt had its designation changed on 16 Feb 1945. This Scout saw a fairly hard war but had recently received shiny new EMFEM 'shoes'. These lorries towed the units' 155 mm guns and BL 9.2-inch howitzers (until the latter were replaced with the new, EMFEM-equipped BL 7.2-inch howitzers). This Scout finished its war at Ferrara, Italy. In 1947, this Scout R110 Mk.IIA was passed on to the Esercito Italiano.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on September 14, 2020, 04:31:58 PM
'Diminutive Brunette Canid'  - love it :)

Looks bloody marvellous Apophenia only you will have the Sgt Major after you for not covering those lights up ;)

I spent ages trying to decide between Pioneer and Constructor but I was heavily influenced by some wonderful 50's Malcolm Root painting of period lorries.
I'm chuffed that you have done this and made a damn good job of it to.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on September 14, 2020, 05:42:26 PM
Great stuff as usual
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on September 14, 2020, 09:22:20 PM
Small Brown Dog and Apophenia,

Beautiful!  Not a lot else to say!!

I now need to fight the urge to start looking at the IBG Pioneer gun tractors.................

Mark
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 15, 2020, 03:31:41 AM
... you will have the Sgt Major after you for not covering those lights up ...

"But Sergeant Major, the war is over now ..."  :(

...I now need to fight the urge to start looking at the IBG Pioneer gun tractors...

Resistance is futile  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on September 15, 2020, 09:25:40 PM
... you will have the Sgt Major after you for not covering those lights up ...


"But Sergeant Major, the war is over now ..."  :(



I spied two of the feline foe myself on my walk this morning ... the fight will never be over!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 16, 2020, 09:27:13 AM
I spied two of the feline foe myself on my walk this morning ... the fight will never be over!

Ruff! Grrr! Rurr-ruff!  (Translation: Ready, Aye Ready!)

BTW, exercise extreme caution. There are known felid-fraternizers on this very discussion group  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on September 16, 2020, 05:25:45 PM
I spied two of the feline foe myself on my walk this morning ... the fight will never be over!

Ruff! Grrr! Rurr-ruff!  (Translation: Ready, Aye Ready!)

BTW, exercise extreme caution. There are known felid-fraternizers on this very discussion group  :o
Not sure where you were taught Doganese but I'm afraid that "Ruff! Grrr! Rurr-ruff! " translates to "excuse me while I  sniff your butt"
and yes, I am a aware of the fifth column element.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 16, 2020, 09:53:50 PM
Me? I'm an inveterate double-agent, actively supporting BOTH camps equally. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 17, 2020, 01:42:23 AM
An invertebrate double-agent? Okay, things are getting too intra-Order around here for me!

Not sure where you were taught Doganese but I'm afraid that "Ruff! Grrr! Rurr-ruff! " translates to "excuse me while I  sniff your butt"
and yes, I am a aware of the fifth column element.

Of course, Canidesian dialects vary. Locally, body language is a critical component. Nuances such as agitated quivering, hackle-raising, eye-bulging, and lower canine exposure all contribute. Butt-sniffing goes without saying but, in polite company, overly inflammatory terms like 'Cxt' or 'Squirrex' are strictly avoided  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on September 17, 2020, 02:01:46 AM
Of course, Canidesian dialects vary. Locally, body language is a critical component. Nuances such as agitated quivering, hackle-raising, eye-bulging, and lower canine exposure all contribute. Butt-sniffing goes without saying but, in polite company, overly inflammatory terms like 'Cxt' or 'Squirrex' are strictly avoided  ;)

In my world, agitated quivering, hackle-raising, eye-bulging, and lower canine exposure are all signs of imminent pukus upthrow having eaten something I found behind the bins.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 19, 2020, 12:19:30 PM
In others words, woofing yer cookies  ;)

Whilst you're on a Panzer III theme, how about an anti-aircraft version?

In 1945, western Allied armies stockpiled some Wehrmacht weaponry in case of attempted Soviet expansion. This included a number of StuG III assault guns as well as some turretless Pz Kpfw III hulls intended to supply running gear spares. Aside from some limited use of gunless StuG IIIs as ad hoc engineering vehicles by the French Troupes d'occupation en Allemagne, [1] these ex-Wehrmacht vehicles remained parked in reserve stockades.

In the aftermath of the Berlin Blockade, the new Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) was created. With the war fresh in memories, the Allied remained resistant to the re-establishment of a German military. However, in March 1951, the Bundesministerium des Innern (BMI or Interior Ministry) formed the Bundesgrenzschutz (BGS) border patrol. Prompted by the creation of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik under Soviet control in the Eastern Sector, moves were made towards the creation of some form of West German self-defence force ('BRD Selbstverteidigungskraft'). Following the BMI's lead, the Auswärtiges Amt (AA or Foreign Office) formed the more neutrally-named Sicherheitskräfte (AA-SK or AA Security Force) with similar police powers to that of the BGS border patrol. In all but name, the AA-SK was the beginnings of a fully-militarized Bundeswehr.

When the Bundeswehr was formally established on 07 May 1952, it was revealed that the Sicherheitskräfte had already received some of the stockpiled ex-Wehrmacht equipment from Allied stores. This included both StuG IIIs and Pz Kpfw III 'spares'. First to be fielded were the Pionierpanzer III(R) - since these ex-French vehicles had already been made roadworthy. The PiPz 3(R)s came fitted with dozer blades (Räumschild) [2] and were the Bundeswehr's first Armoured Engineering Vehicles. Lacking hoists and excavator buckets, the PiPz 3(R)s were largely restricted to debris clearance and simpler Field Engineering tasks.

Top Pionierpanzer 3(Räumschild). This PiPz 3(R) belongs to PzPiBtl 130 of PzBtl 9/1. PzDiv. The Sachsenross emblem of 1. Panzerdivision is shown on the starboard side (the crest of Panzerlehrbrigade 9 being worn on the opposite side of the hull).

The PiPz 3 AEVs were followed into service by Kanonenjagdpanzer 75 assault vehicles (mainly 'refreshed' StuG III Ausf.Gs and 'Js). However, these KanJPz 75 were not the first armed variant - the Allies still being reluctant to provide the Germans with stored 75 mm guns or their ammunition. [3] In a surprise development, the first armed Bundespanzer Typ 3 variant was based on the 'spares' Pz.Kpfw III hulls. These were the Flugabwehrpanzer 40 armed with twin Bofors autocannons. These Flakpanzer 40 anti-aircraft vehicles were fitted with surplus turrets from recently retired US Army M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriages (MGMC). The Flakpanzer 40 conversion work was performed by Eisenwerke Kaiserslautern (EWK).

Bottom Flugabwehrpanzer 40 armed with two 40 mm M2A1 Bofors guns. This Flakpanzer 40 belonged to Flugabwehrartilleriebataillon 1 der 1. Grenadier division.

Unlike the Flugabwehrtruppe's half-track Panzerflak M 16A1, the full-track Flakpanzer 40 was considered a success conversion. However, its service life was comparatively short. In 1958, the Flakpanzer 40 was replaced by the similarly-armed M42 Duster. In anti-aircraft performance, there was little to choose between the two full-track types. But the US M42 had the distinct advantage of a sunstantial spare parts chain.

The Vollkettenartillerietraktor 3 (VKAT 3) was a refurbished StuG III (without its main gun) employed by the Feldartilleriebataillonen as a gun tug (Artillerie-Schlepper) or ammunition limber tractor for the Panzerhaubitze M7. Another refurbished StuG was the experimental Raketenwerfer 114 - which was armed with roof-mounted Leichten Artillerie Raketen 114 mm (US 4.5 in T34 Calliope rockets).

Two other Typ 3 vehicles were planned but not built. One was the Panzermörser 3 - another 'gunless' StuG, to be armed in this case, with the 81 mm M1 mortar for the schweren Kompanien of the Jägerbataillons. This project was abandoned in favour of a 'dismount' M1 carried in the more economical Universal Carrier. A more ambitious project was the turreted Spähpanzer 76 recce vehicle. This was to be a Panzer III hull fitted with open-topped turret from retired US Army M18 Hellcat tank destroyers. The object of the Spähpanzer 76 programme was to provide an interim 'scout tank' while awaiting the Spähpanzer SP I.C. which was then in the planning stage. A shortage of funds (and available Panzer III hulls) truncated the 'SP 76' programme.

The KanJPz 75 never were fully armed and schemes to up-gun to 76 mm US M1A2 guns were never realized. Instead, the best KanJPz hulls were selected for conversion to more Munitionsschlepper Typ 3 (MS 3) for use by the Feldartilleriebataillonen. As already noted, the Panzerflak 40s were replaced by M42s in 1958 and, thereafter, formed part of the Typ 3 spares pool. The MS 3s, Artillerie Traktors, and PiPz 3(R)s lasted longest, being refurbished and converted to diesel power in 1957-59. [4]

______________________________


[1] The French TOA referred to these 'de-fanged' StuGs as EBG-3(A)s L'engin blindé du génie (Allemande) (Troupes d'occupation en Allemagne (TOA)

[2] As inherited from the French, the PiPz 3(R) were equipped with the US M5 bulldozer blade (as used on the M8 Tractor).

[3] Sourcing ammunition for the StuG's original 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 gun would have been difficult in any case.

[4] The process of replacing the original Maybach HL120 TRM gasoline engines with Deutz F12L614 air-cooled V-12 diesels began in the Autumn of 1957.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 20, 2020, 02:26:04 AM
 :smiley:

Kind of plays into a scenario I have toyed with whereby the reformed Deutsches Heer is only equipped with tank destroyers (and their ilk) for their primary armoured vehicle.  Conventional tanks are thus not there so no M48 or Leo 1.  Maybe some reconditioned Jagdpanthers or even a small set of Jagdpanzer E 100 (which was the trigger for the idea and the model I wanted to build in post war colours) before leading to the Kanonenjagdpanzer and even Stridsvagn 103.  Essentially the reformed Deutsches Heer is given a defensive only posture.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on September 20, 2020, 04:02:24 AM
:smiley:

Kind of plays into a scenario I have toyed with whereby the reformed Deutsches Heer is only equipped with tank destroyers (and their ilk) for their primary armoured vehicle.  Conventional tanks are thus not there so no M48 or Leo 1.  Maybe some reconditioned Jagdpanthers or even a small set of Jagdpanzer E 100 (which was the trigger for the idea and the model I wanted to build in post war colours) before leading to the Kanonenjagdpanzer and even Stridsvagn 103.  Essentially the reformed Deutsches Heer is given a defensive only posture.

Ya mean like the 3rd Reich forces from 1943 on?  ;D :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 24, 2020, 07:53:23 AM
A quick diversion from the 'ground targets'. This was prompted by an SPF discussion (Alternative Supermarine Swift Scenario?) which basically asked: what if the Swift hadn't been such a turd? One detail I noticed was that all of the RW proposed 'improved' Swift concepts - the Type 545, Type 548, etc. - maintain that troublesome extended inboard wing leading edge. So, not much to go on there but, hey, that's what whiffery is for ;)

 - https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alternative-supermarine-swift-scenario.35378/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alternative-supermarine-swift-scenario.35378/)

_____________________________________________________

Super Swift - A 'Silk Purse' out of Supermarine's 'Sow'?

The Vickers-Supermarine Type 546 Swift F.4 was fitted with a variable-incidence tailplane to cure the type's deadly pitch-up issue. After establishing a briefly-held world speed record, the prototype Swift F.4 prototype was rebuilt as the Type 546PV (Private Venture) by fitting an imported Svenska Flygmotor RM5 powerplant. The Swedish engine - specifically its afterburner - solved the Swift's reheat-at-altitude issue. From that work evolved the Type 546M with a raised, all-flying tail and a revised nose profile. This variant entered RAF service as the Swift F.6 which the RAF regarded as an interim fighter type pending further development and refinement of the airframe.

Top Vickers-Supermarine Type 546M Swift F.6 of No.79 Squadron, RAF Guterslöh, West Germany, late Sept 1956

The source of the Swift's pitch-up problem had been extending the wing leading-edge to accommodate the RAF's demanded doubling of gun armament. Joe Smith et al curbed the issue with the all-flying tailplane but knew that this was not a complete cure. It was decided, for the Swift to have any of the flying qualities of its illustrious ancestors, a completely new wing design was needed. And since the rival Hawker Hunter was being favoured by RAF planners, the Supermarine design would need to provide a 'quantum leap' in performance. To that end, a radical solution was arrived at.

The Vickers-Supermarine Type 549 would begin as another Private Venture exercise. The original Type 546PV was stripped of its wings and had its fuselage and tailplane rebuilt to Swift F.6 standards. A new wing centre section was fitted which accommodated the main undercarriage, twin 30 mm ADEN cannons, and new missile pylons (which extended upwards to act as wing fences). Outboard of those fences, Wing pivot mechanisms to provide variable-sweep. Compared with the F.6's 40° wing sweep angle, the Type 549's variable-geometry allowed the outer wing panels to be 'swung' aft to 60° to achieve transonic speeds. For sustained subsonic flight, a wing sweep of 45° would be selected. To ensure good slow-flying control For landing, sweep could be reduced down to 28°.

The direct inspiration for the 'Swing-Wing Swift' was said to have come through discussions with Saab in Sweden. [1] Swing-wing concept was already under investigation at Vickers - where the Head of the Vickers-Armstrongs Research & Development Department, Barne Wallis was working on his supersonic 'Wild Goose' project. A simplified version of Wallis' mechanism would be employed on the Type 549. Wallis' work was aimed at the supersonic Vickers Sparrow ... which prompted a re-naming suggestion, with the 'Swing-Wing Swift' becoming the Sparrowhawk. Ultimately, Vickers-Supermarine management rejected this name. [2]

Following marketing department recommendations, the Type 549 was dubbed the Vicker-Supermarine 'Switchblade' in advertising. [3] The RAF was having none of it and the service designation became Swift F.10. Initially, it was planned to arm the new fighter with two ADENs and twin 'Blue Jay' Mk.1 missiles (aka 'Red Hawk'. This de Havilland missile - which ultimately became Firestreak in service, was a large, cumbersome system. Vickers proposed a less complex development - in effect, a scaling-down of their 'Red Dean' missile. The proposed 'Red Deacon' air-to-air missile took inspiration from the US Sidewinder-1. 'Red Deacon' would also be infrared-guided and based around a single rocket booster. [4] This 'Red Deacon' proposal was accepted for service use as the Firedrake IR-guided missile.

Bottom 'Switchblade' - Vicker-Supermarine Swift F.10 of No. 2 Squadron, RAF Guterslöh, West Germany, 1958 (later moving to RAF Brüggen). Note Vickers Firedrake Mk.1 short-range AAM on wing fence pylon and nose radome for GEC AI.16R ranging radar. [5]

After initial guidance issues were cured, the Firedrake shed its unflattering sobriquet of 'Firebrat'. Through three marks, the Vickers Firedrake gave good service. Ultimately, the larger Vickers 'Red Dean' was a failure - the  pulse-Doppler radar proving beyond the contemporary state-of-the-art. As a result, neither Swift proposals with 'Red Deans' saw the light of day. These were the radar-equipped Swift F.11 and the gunless Swift F.14 (with 'Red Deans' on inboard pylons and Firedrakes outboard). Also gunless was the Swift T.12 tandem-seat trainer which did see limited service (prior to an RAF decision to standardize on side-by-side Hunter trainers.

____________________________

[1] Postwar, the Swedes had received details on the Messerschmitt Me P.1101 concept (which was refined into the 1951 Bell X-5 - the first variable-geometry jet aircraft to fly). Supermarine officials were in Linköping to fly the new Saab 32 Lansen - both to investigate its Svenska Flygmotor reheat unit and to discuss possible UK license production should the RAF express interest in the Lansen.

[2] Other rejected name proposals for the swing-wing fighter were Supermarine Scythe and Stiletto.

[3] Presumably, this marketing effort was aimed at the export market - in British usage, a 'switchblade' would be more commonly referred to as a 'flick knife'.

[4] The 6-inch diameter 'Red Deacon' solid fuel motor - the Malabar - was a lengthened derivative of one of the DH Firestreak's twin Magpie boosters.

[5] Despite its designation, the AI.16R ('R' for Ranging) had nothing in common with the AI.16 - GEC's losing bid to provide an air intercept radar for the Gloster Javelin all-weather fighter. The AI.16R was, instead, a GEC-built variant of the US AN/APG-5 ranging radar used on the RAF's Canadair Sabres.

BTW: These sideviews are based on the box-art for the Xtrakit Swift.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 25, 2020, 01:09:04 AM
Hmmm...interesting.  I wonder what a plan view would look like.

Given the Swedish involvement here, are we likely to see a Svenska Flygvapnet Swift F.10?  Perhaps as the J 34?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 26, 2020, 02:49:41 AM
Given the Swedish involvement here, are we likely to see a Svenska Flygvapnet Swift F.10?  Perhaps as the J 34?

I'm kind of leaning the other direction ... what to do with an export J32 Lansen?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 27, 2020, 03:50:12 AM
Pre-empting perhaps...

(https://combatace.com/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh173/SPINNERS1961/WHAT%2520IF%25202010/WHAT%2520IF%25202011/RAFLANSENFGA102.jpg&key=309952e204d456fad73a8bacda6eaa52c1c83d1d178e52613f75817e3006e5d6)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 28, 2020, 10:55:42 AM
Very nice! But not quite ...  ;)
________________________


Lansen Down Under - the Saab (GAF) AF-32 Lance

The Avon-powered Saab 32 Lansen was a natural complement to the RAAF's CAC CA-27 Sabre jet fighters. While five squadrons of the single-seat Sabres were fielded, there were only two squadrons of the Swedish two-seat fighters. [1] Both were resurrected WW2 units - No 7 Sqn and No 15 Sqn - which had flown Beauforts in the light bomber and maritime patrol roles. That reflected the originally intended tasking of interception with a secondary strike-fighter role (including maritime interdiction).

Unlike the more numerous Sabres, there would there be no domestic production of Saabs. Instead, airframes were delivered from Sweden as component knock-down kits which were assembled by the Government Aircraft Factory and fitted-out with locally-produced avionics, instruments, and CAC-built Avon engines. [2] The result was designed as the RAAF's Saab (GAF) AF-32 Lance long-range interceptor/strike-fighter.

To satisfy the strike-fighter role, the Lance was tested with a range of air-launched weapons. These included British 3-inch RP3s, US 6-inch (HVAR), and Swedish 7.2-inch HE Anti-Shipping Rocket (18 cm halvpansarraket m/49). [3] In the end, it was concluded that the in-service 80 mm Hispano SURA rocket pods and quartet of 30 mm ADEN cannons was more than sufficient. However, it was intended that the guided Rb04 anti-ship missile with active radar homing would be procured from Sweden when budgetary conditions allowed. Alas, no funds were ever allocated for an Rb04 purchase.

Bottom First Series GAF AF-32 Lance in temporary Aircraft Research and Development Unit markings. The ARDU was responsible for weapons trials including, as shown here, a dozen underwing 3-inch RP3s (with Head, 12 lb., "Practice" No.1 Mk.1). After trials were complete, this aircraft was re-delivered to No 15 Squadron.

Both No 7 and No 15 Squadron were operated from RAAF Base Amberley, the home of the RAAF's Strike Recce Group. The squadrons' Lances were deployed into 'hot' zones twice. The first was patrols along Papua New Guinea's eastern border in 1962. Indonesia had just occupied the former Netherlands New Guinea and TNI-AU aircraft were encrouching into PNG territory. A detail from No 15 Sqn flew patrols out of Port Moresby until being relieved by Sabres of No 75 Sqn. In August 1964, things got 'hotter' for the Lances.

'The Year of Living Dangerously' - Overwatch for Borneo

No 7 Sqn deployed to RAAF Butterworth in Malaya during the Konfrontasi with Indonesia. Officially, the squadron was in Penang to protect the peninsula and Singapore - alongside No 3 Sqn Sabres - during the 'Malayan Emergency'. Unofficially, No 7 was in Malaya in case longer-range was needed to provide top cover for the SASR secretly operating on Borneo. Fortunately, conflict was avoided - the TNI-AU restricting its activities to testing the international boundary. In March of 1965, No 7 wer relieved by Sabres of No 77 Squadron.

Top Saab (GAF) AF-32 Lance of No 7 Squadron, RAAF Butterworth, Malaya, Feb 1965. A99-174 is a Second Series aircraft (all of which were delivered in full camouflage schemes). This aircraft wears the No 7 Squadron 'woomera' emblem on its fin and the dedication name 'City of Ipswich' on its nose (along with the town crest).

Unofficial markings include two 'Fosters Export' labels sported under the cockpit for successful 'tags' - escorting Indonesian TNI-AU aircraft away from Malayan airspace. One of these was for a MiG-17 intercept, the other was the unique 'tag' of a TNI-AU Tupolev Tu-16KS-1 Badger bomber skirting the Malay side of the Strait of Malacca. Note that '174 carried a belly tank and twin AIM-9 missiles. [4]

The Saab AF-32 Lance served for just over a decade. Initially, no mid-life was thought necessary because these aircraft were to be replaced by the much more capable F-111. As the latter programme suffered delays and budget increases, there was no budget available to 'life-extend' the Lances. At the end of December 1967, both No 7 and No 15 Squadron were stood down. When they arrived, the F-111s would replace Canberras. The RAAF's Lances were already history.

____________________________________________________

[1] Both squadrons had a dual-control AFT-32 Lance for refresher training. At set periods, these 'dualies' were loaned out to the RAAF's No.2 Operational Conversion Unit.

[2] The Australian-made turbojets were, however, fitted with Swedish-built afterburners.

[3] Other Swedish-made rockets considered but not tested were: the 4-inch Practice RP (10 cm övningsraket m/47), 5.8-inch AT-RP (14,5 cm pansarsprängraket m/49), and 6-inch HE-RP (15 cm sprängraket M/51).

[4] Early on at Butterworth, the Lances carried a full complement of four Sidewinders. This was later reduced to a pair of AIM-9s to improve intercept performance.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 29, 2020, 02:31:59 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on September 29, 2020, 06:46:02 PM
Reads latest post

Much likes the RAAF Lances

Immediately scans the stash for Heller Lansen kits

Straight to Ebay to see if he can pick a couple up...............

 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on September 30, 2020, 02:54:38 AM
Apophenia's posts tend to do much stash searching/ebaying!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 30, 2020, 03:01:06 AM
I wonder...were the RAAF Lances sold to anyone... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on September 30, 2020, 11:14:45 AM
Apophenia's posts tend to do much stash searching/ebaying!

True dat!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 01, 2020, 04:58:32 AM
Thanks folks!

I wonder...were the RAAF Lances sold to anyone... ;)

I wasn't planning to do more ... but they would look good with Kiwi roundels and slung with anti-shipping missiles  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 03, 2020, 11:19:08 AM
I said that I wouldn't, but I have ...  ;)

________________________________________


Project Karearea - Swedish Lance into a New Zealand Falcon

In 1974, the Government of New Zealand availed itself of the opportunity of purchasing retired RAAF aircraft at steeply discounted prices. The gem in this deal were twenty Saab (GAF) AF-32 Lance 2-seat fighters. These Swedish-built aircraft had been retired from RAAF service in 1969 and had been languishing in open storages at the Woomera Prohibited Area. The Lance was a rather large fighter but their purchase helped make up for the cancellation of a A-4K/TA-4K Skyhawk buy back in 1970.

After some refurbishment by the Government Aircraft Factory (a component of the purchase deal), the first Lances were ferried to RNZAF Base Ohakea where they were taken on strength by No 2 Squadron RNZAF - that unit later providing Lance pilot conversion for No 75 Squadron and the recently-reformed No. 26 Squadron. The latter unit was stood up again specifically for the maritime strike role. The F-32 Lance - as it was referred to by the Kiwis - certainly had the range for this role but its load-out of 30 mm cannons and unguided rockets was consider less than ideal. [1] However, armament and sensor improvements would have to wait for the time being.

Between 1976 and 1978, a series of incremental improvements and updated were made to the Kiwi F-32 fleet. That these 20-year-old aircraft were becoming outdated was obvious but the sturdy airframes had life in them yet. The most important upgrade was the replacement of the original Saab Mk 1 rocket-boosted ejection seats with new Martin-Baker PB Mk 4B 'bang seats' (as used in the RNZAF's Strikemasters). The aging CAC-built Rolls-Royce Avon engines were also replaced over time - by later-model Svenska Flygmotor RM6s (the Swedish-built variant of the Avon). Investigations were also made into modernizing avionics and sensors, but action on these items would have to wait for a more comprehensive Lance upgrade programme.

Project Karearea - Swedish Lance into a New Zealand Falcon

In 1983, the RNZAF initiated Project Karearea [2] to improve the capabilities of its ex-RAAF Saab Lance fleet. It was originally planned that the original Swedish PS-432/A radar would be replaced by the Ferranti Airpass II Blue Parrot (as on the Blackburn Buccaneer) and a trial installation was made prior to the launch of Project Karearea. Testing of the so-called F-32X 'test mule' suggested that the RNZAF should find a more modern search radar (as well as a better anti-shipping missile than the Hawker Siddeley/Matra AS 37 Marte). Fortunately, Saab had already tested the PS-37/A radar (intended for the new JA37 Viggen) on a J32 Lansen airframe. This set was chosen for the Project Karearea radar upgrade. [3]

Bottom The sole F-32X trials mule seen in later days. In No 14 Sqn service, NZ6203 was dubbed 'Te Muera' ('The Mule'). Here, the F-32X retains its unique Buccaneer radome - although, in 1989, it actually housed a General Instrument ALR-66 radar set on lone for trials.

Note that NZ6203 has also been used to trial the single-seat cockpit mod intended for the unrealized F-32NG upgrade. The rear cockpit space was largely filled with a new fuel tanks (allowing '03 to dispense with the usual Lance belly fairing). The 'hi-viz' markings sported by NZ6203 were unique on Lance wearing the overall green scheme introduced during Project Karearea.

The new LM Ericsson PS-37/A monopulse X-band radar introduced by Project Karearea was optimized for maritime tracking. The new radar's big, 70 cm diameter antenna greatly expanded the options for new anti-shipping armament.  of twin, wing-mounted Hawker Siddeley/Matra AS 37 Martel missiles. [3]


Saab proposed integrating the Rb 75, Sweden's version of the AGM-65A Maverick TV-guided missile. However, the David Lange-led Labour government which took power in 1984 was in no mood to buy US-made armaments. This proved to be of little concern to the RNZAF which had taken a shine to the new BAe Sea Eagle - a  sea-skimming, radar-guided missile. That missile was chosen and entered RNZAF service in June 1986. A key perceived advantage of the Sea Eagle was that, once the British missile was launched, it became completely autonomous. The anti-shipping Lances could safely launch their missiles from more than 100 km out and the active radar Sea Eagles would find their own way to the target.

Top A Sea Eagle-armed F-32M Lance of No 75 (Maritime Strike) Squadron, flying out of RNZAF Base Ohakea in late 1986. Note, like all F-32Ms, NZ6209 has four gun ports. In fact, only two 30 mm ADEN cannons were fitted to the F-32M as a weight-savings measure.

Two of the RNZAF's operational squadrons traded primary missions during the Project Karearea upgrades. A former fighter squadron, No 75 received F-32Ms and Sea Eagle missiles. In turn, No 26 became a fighter squadron flying Sidewinder-armed F-32Bs in the interceptor role. [4] No 14 Squadron became the Air Combat Force OTU - flying both the dual-control TF-32 Lance and Jet Provost from RNZAF Base Woodbourne. No 2 Squadron remained at RNZAF base Ohakea but gave up its Lance for BAC Strikemasters. These updated Lances remained in service until 2001 when the Labour Government of Helen Clark eliminated the Air Combat Force from the RNZAF's structure. Although than two preserved examples - one F-32B and one F-32M - the retired Lances were all scrapped at the maintenance facility at Woodbourne.

__________________________________

[1] In early RNZAF service, the Lances usually carried four of six-round, 135 mm Bofors M70 rocket pods.

[2] Karearea is the Maori name for the New Zealand Falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae).

[3] A Ferranti/Elliot dual-band Q/X-band radar had also been examined. However, this set was eliminated from the Project Karearea due to this radar's experimental nature (and unnecessary emphasis on ground-following).

[4] Unlike other upgraded RNZAF Lance variants, the F-32B retained its four-gun fixed armament.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 04, 2020, 02:05:41 AM
Outstanding! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on October 25, 2020, 07:59:38 AM
Kim: My guess on the Type 333's reversed gull was Supermarine obsessing on the mountains of data gleaned from wind tunnel tests on R-R's He 70. The question is: were the added manufacturing headaches worth the aerodynamic benefits?

And now on to another unbuilt project ...

'Swords' into Claymores - the Canadair CL-76

For some time, I've been curious about what the Canadair CL-76 project would have looked like if built.

Canadair had hoped to produce a number of evolved CL-13 Sabre designs. Among these unbuilt projects were the CL-13G 2-seat trainer (akin to North American's TF-86F) and the CL-13J with a simplified Bristol afterburner (as compared with the afterburner originally planned for the CL-13C). Later, with the writing on the wall for further 'Sword' production, Canadair made more radical plans.

The 1958 CL-76 project was intended to produce a 2-seat NATO attack aircraft using the maximum number of F-86 and CL-13 components. There were three variants of the proposed CL-76. The first two kept fairly close to the F-86/CL-13 pattern other than being powered by twin engines, pod-mounted on the rear fuselage.

The baseline CL-76 was to be powered by compact Pratt & Whitney Canada JT12 (US military designation J60) fitted with afterburners. The CL-76A proposal was essentially similar to the CL-76 other than being powered by slightly larger Bristol Siddeley Orpheus BOr.12SR turbojets. These engines (TJ37s in the US designation system) would produce 6,810 lbf dry, with 8,170 lbf reheat.

There was also a CL-76B proposal but it involved much more radical airframe changes - 'internal' engines, high-mounted wings, etc. Obviously, the CL-76B was no longer an exercise in recycling exiting F-86/CL-13 components. Rather, those components were to be modified out of all recognition. However, none of these Canadair proposals was taken up by Canada or any other NATO member.

Here, I've shown what I imagine service CL-76 Claymores would have looked like. She's no looker but, to me at least, it was still an interesting design exercise by Canadair.

(Top) A former RCAF Claymore Mk.1A (2 x J60s) in Yugoslav markings. To prolong airframe life, the Yugoslavs removed their Claymores outer weapon pylons.

The Claymore Mk.1s had no fixed gun armament. This aircraft sports a false radome like all RCAF Claymores (the targetting radar was omitted from Canadian airframes as an economy measure).

(Bottom) A Claymore Mk.3 (2 x TJ37s) near the end of its RAF service. This aircraft lacks both inboard and outboard weapon pylons since it is being employed on Claymore pilot refresher courses.

Oh wow....a belated wow 😯
Beautiful profiles Apophenia!!

I've really just been enlightened by the CL-76 program......
The "CL-76B program" you allude to, was that a real-world program? If so could please direct me to the info you might have on the CL-76B program? Also are you planning a profile of this CL-76B???


MAD
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 25, 2020, 12:09:19 PM
@Apophenia - I do like where you are going with this Lansen idea.  One of my many slow cooking projects is to try and turn the Lansen in to an ersatz F-86C/YF-93 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_YF-93).  Yes, a bit far fetched but it does kind of/sort of resemble an F-86 Sabre if you stretch your imagination.     
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 27, 2020, 02:08:26 AM
M.A.D: The CL-76B was, indeed, a real Canadair project. The details given all came from Bill Upton's Canada Aviation and Space Museum fact file on the CL-13B Sabre (link below). The CASM pdf is not searchable but, if you scroll down to page 10 of 26 of the pdf, you'll find what Upton as to say on the CL-76 (with an implied connection to the CL-53 bizjet-style crew readiness trainer).

 -- http://documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-CanadairCL-13BSabre.pdf (http://documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-CanadairCL-13BSabre.pdf)

I can't seem to extract anything from that CASM pdf but somehow Stéphane did for Secret Projects. See: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canadair-cl-13-sabre-jet-fighter-and-proposed-derivatives.30485/#post-331798 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canadair-cl-13-sabre-jet-fighter-and-proposed-derivatives.30485/#post-331798)

And I've just realized that Piotr reposted my CL-76 sideviews on that Secret Projects thread. I should probably rely and fess up to how much what-if guessification was involved  :o

IIRC, Ron Pickler (Canadair: The First 50 Years) describes only the base CL-76 (2 x JT12s). Ken Molson (Canadian Aircraft since 1909) does too, mentioning no other variants or sub-type designations.

@Apophenia - I do like where you are going with this Lansen idea.  One of my many slow cooking projects is to try and turn the Lansen in to an ersatz F-86C/YF-93 ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_YF-93[/url]).  Yes, a bit far fetched but it does kind of/sort of resemble an F-86 Sabre if you stretch your imagination.     


Jeff: Absolutely ... and in no way far-fetched! The Lansen wings and especially the tail surface arrangements screams Sabre. The nose has more of an F-80/T-33 vibe happening. Overall result (to my eyes) is a very cool combo  :smiley:

I love your ersatz F-86C/YF-93 idea. Are you going North American or Saab origin for this concept?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 27, 2020, 11:38:02 PM
I love your ersatz F-86C/YF-93 idea. Are you going North American or Saab origin for this concept?
Not really sure at this point who would be prime contractor on it.  IIRC the U.S. provided MDAP funding via or through NATO to have AVRO Canada produce the CF-100 for the RDAF Belgian Air Force [thanks for the clarification apophenia]. 

Maybe for an alternative it could be something similar but based on the J32 Lansen becoming the F-93?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 28, 2020, 04:58:57 AM
Those MDAP-funded CF-100s were for Belgium (replacing Meteor NF.11s). Denmark also used the Meteor NF.11 as all-weather interceptors (but I'm not sure how those Meteors were funded).

The RW RDAF also received F-86D Sabres. Overall, Lansen performance outshines the single-seat 'Sabre Dog'. I'm sure that the latter turned tighter but J 32 speed, climb, and ceiling were similar to the Sabre while J 32 range and armament were much superior.

Running with this has me wondering about a US-licensed J 32. Say the USAF assigns some license-production to keep the Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Division alive after 1951. (Maybe Curtiss builds some foreign military aid Sabres, instead of funding Canadair?) Then, Curtiss-Wright gets the license to build the Saab J 32B for the USAF and NATO export. Curtiss-Wright's initial proposal - the Model 110 - was a Saab 32 powered by an in-house Wright J65 (Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire) fitted with a Curtiss-Wright devised afterburner. This was rejected for a simpler, 'least-mod' Saab 32 powered by the original Royce-Royce Avon engine.

This revised Model 110B would be eclipsed by developments. In an attempt to prop up another failing supplier, the USAF ordered a licensed Avon from the faltering Westinghouse Aviation Gas Turbine Division. Westinghouse's plan for a scaled-down Avon 300 producing 6,000 lbf - the XJ54 - was nixed. Instead, the USAF requested that Westinghouse produce its J54 as a full-powered, 'Americanized' Avon 200 fitted with the Swedish-designed afterburner from the Svenska Flygmotor RM5. [1]

The Model 110C adjusted for this revised engine type and was accepted for production as the Curtiss-Wright F-98 Blackhawk II. [2] I'm imagining the series F-98s replacing the Lockheed F-94Cs instead of F-86Ds.

Thoughts?
________________________________________

[1] The Avon 200 introduced a compressor based on that of the Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire (aka Wright J65). The RM5 was the Swedish-licenced Avon RA.3/Mk.109 for the Saab 32 Lansen.

[2] The naming alludes to another Westinghouse-powered Curtiss-Wright jet fighter - the XF-87. The Roman numeral 'II' was usually dropped in official references to the Blackhawk. BTW, the RW designation F-98 was assigned to the Hughes AAM-A-2 Falcon missile (later GAR-9, later AIM-4).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 28, 2020, 05:53:36 AM
@ apophenia - Thanks for the clarification on the CF-100, I edited my OP to reflect the correct information.  To be honest, I never followed much of the early NATO/MDAP things except for the CF-100 as it was built on our side of the pond and to have it serve in another nations air force was quite significant when most of the other NATO aircraft of that period were provided were from the U.S. or the U.K. 

Not sure if Curtiss would have been up to the task.  Even Westinghouse was building F-84 Thunderjets along side their washing machines (Evansville, Indiana).   What about Ford?  The Willow Run plan would have been idle with the end of the war.  Perhaps Ford could have stepped up after the B-24 ceased production. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on October 28, 2020, 06:10:25 AM
Too, the Curtiss use of the Navy plant in Columbus, Ohio was transferred to NAA circa 1950, so that wouldn't be available for Curtiss, either.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 28, 2020, 06:55:07 AM
Curtiss-Wright would be the worst possible choice to build a Yank Lansen.  ;D
Hmm, would it have a Minnesota, Wisconsin or UP accent?  ??? :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 28, 2020, 07:07:57 AM
And the best possible choice would be?  __________________________   ;D

I picked Curtiss-Wright out of the air - first failed planemaker that came to mind. Ditto for Westinghouse AGT ... and I didn't even know that Westinghouse had ever built airframes!  :-[

I Googled the Willow Run plant. Ownership was convoluted. Built by Ford, it was sold to the US Government who then leased it back to Ford for B-24 production. Ford had no interest in the plant postwar so the plant (and airport) were sold to the University of Michigan. Kaiser then took on a five year lease, building Kaiser-Frazer models there. Later it became a GM plant.

So, I guess we need a different location and a different manufacturer ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 28, 2020, 12:30:54 PM
@apophenia - This is an Alt-History so would it really matter if the OTL plant was closed down?  Another aircraft plant was located at what is now Offut Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska.  It was operated by Glenn L. Martin Company for B-29 MO production.  It was eventually taken over by the USAF and turned in to a number of office and industrial areas.  Having attended an Joint USAF/US Army/US Navy Imagery Analyst course in that building I was quite surprised to discover that there were two levels at one end of the plant.  My "trade school" was located on the ground floor or basement of that building. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 30, 2020, 09:22:46 AM
... This is an Alt-History so would it really matter if the OTL plant was closed down? ...

Too true. The OTL plant was turned over to the University of Michigan for a dollar. Maybe there's a rider on that requiring  tenants who are advancing aviation in Michigan?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 06, 2020, 09:09:01 AM
This one spins out of a Invasion of Japan/Japan ‘46 GB topic.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9536.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9536.0)

However, since these developments are in a postwar timeframe, I thought that I'd place them here instead.
________________________________

Once the Japanese Home Islands were finally fully occupied, the USAAF was anxious to demobilize veteran aircrews as quickly as possible. The Martin B-33B Marianas was seen strictly as an interim type with no future with the postwar USAAF. Accordingly, many of the Martin bombers were dispersed to US allies in the Western Pacific. The main recipient was the Republic of China which was now engaged in a civil war with its former allies in the Chinese Communist Party.

With its engine commonality, the B-33B was seen as a good match with ROCAF B-25 medium bombers (one result being the shifting of Chinese B-24s to the heavy transport role). But it was not originally intended that China should receive the Marianas. Philippines-based aircraft had been earmarked for Australia and the Netherlands. However, Australia was already preparing for local production of the Avro Lincoln. Moreover, the State Department had concerns about supplying the Dutch with heavy bombers just as their colonial war in the Netherlands East Indies was heating up. Instead, China received 15 B-33B-FO-1s and five B-33B-FO-2s.

Bottom A Martin B-33B-FO-1 Marianas of the Republic of China Air Force's 10th (Bomber) Squadron based at Chinkiang. Although there was no 'standard' Chinese Marianas, this aircraft is fairly typical. Note that the dorsal turret has been removed to improve top speed. To save further weight, the belly position has been reduced to a single .50-cal Browning. Other equipment considered non-essential was also stripped out.

This ROCAF B-33B has been named 'Wu fú'. In Mandarin, 'five bats' (Wufu) sounds very much like 'five blessings' (Wu fú). A traditional Wufu motif decorates both side of the nose (just for a bit of extra good fortune). The tail gunner - perhaps feeling he was too far away from all that goodness - had applied the Fu rebus to the sides of his gun position. Fu also means 'blessings and luck'.

Despite all its auspicious decorations, the luck didn't last for 'Wu fú'. On 26 Dec 1947, the B-33B was intercepted by a Lavochkin La-11 fighter of the 21st bingtuan, Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army. After a head-on firing pass, the Lavochkin collided with the Marianas' tall tail fin. Both aircraft came down near Weihwei just north of the Hwang-ho River. The La-11 pilot - likely a Soviet VVS exchange pilot - was probably killed on impact. Three of the ROCAF aircrew were  successful in bailing out of their striken bomber.

Another Martin bomber disposed of in Asia was the B-26 Marauder. Most were scrapped on their airfields at war's end but some Marauders were retained by the Dutch in the Indië - ostensibly as patrol aircraft but, in reality, as back-ups to the NEIAF's preferred B-25 Mitchell medium bombers. The other recipient of patrol Marauders was the newly independent Republika ng Pilipinas which operated a fleet of twelve B-26G(P)s. [1]

Bottom A Martin 'B-26P' of the Hukbong Himpapawid ng Pilipinas assigned to the PhilAF's 12th (Patrol) Squadron based at Laoag Airfield (on the west coast of northern Luzon). Markings consist of an early version of the PhilAF roundel in six positions. This aircraft also carries a large national flag on the tail and 'Philippines' lettered on its belly (such markings being distinct to maritime patrol aircraft). Above the shark's mouth motif on the nose is the slogan 'Takot sa Pating!' ('Fear the Shark!').

Essentially a depot-modified patrol conversion of a B-26G-11-MA, this airframe was further stripped down for Philippines service. Despite the ferocious nose markings, defensive armament has been virtually eliminated - the nose and tail positions are now observation posts. The dorsal turret has been removed altogether and belly positions covered with plexiglass panels. Additional observation positions have also been let into the rear fuselage (these apparently being local 'mods').

'B-26P' 4734 served with the 12th (Patrol) Squadron until mid-1950. After a hangar accident, 4734 became a ground trainer which was also raided for spares to keep the PhilAF Marauder fleet flying.

________________________________

[1] The B-26G(P) was a Conversion Center modification of factory-supplied B-26G bombers. Radio and navigation kit was more extensive and extended-range tanks were installed in the aft bomb-bay extension. But the B-26G(P) conversion also involved removing superfluous bomber equipment to save weight.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 07, 2020, 01:54:28 AM
Hmmm... no chance of the Chinese operating the B-33 in a '46 scenario?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 07, 2020, 02:02:31 AM
I wonder ...post war B-33 converted to Maritime Patrol.  Maybe in some of the P-2 Neptune operator schemes?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 09, 2020, 05:15:58 AM
I wonder ...post war B-33 converted to Maritime Patrol.  Maybe in some of the P-2 Neptune operator schemes?

At the end of WW2, the Glenn L. Martin Company separated itself from Ford - and the B-33B - as rapidly as possible. Although Ford had not been an aircraft supplier to the US Navy since the days of its old JR trimotor, the firm made an unsolicited proposal towards a postwar replacement for the PB4Y Privateer. [1] The proposed long-range patrol bomber's airframe was essentially that of the B-33B but with major changes to armament and, especially, to powerplants. Submitted as an unofficially designated 'XPBR-1' Forrestal, [2] Ford's patrol bomber was to be powered entirely by propeller-turbine engines.

Using an incomplete B-33B-FO-2 airframe purchased back from the Army, Ford prepared a mock up for its proposal. With Martin out of the way, the opportunity was taken to install Ford's preferred armament system based on that of the XB-24N Liberator. Indeed, the one-off nose-mounted Sperry ball turret was 'recycled' directly from one of seven YB-24N prototypes. [3] The tail turret was also inspired by that of the YB-24N but was, in essence, a 'Cheyenne' position from the late-production B-17G.

Most radical were those propeller-turbine engines. Rival proposals employed piston engines - two 2,300 hp Wright R-3359-8s in the case of the Lockheed-Vega Model V-146, twin P&W R-4360-20As for the Martin Model 219. But the Martin concept - which became the P4M-1 Mercator - was a 'mixed power' design. Behind each piston engine was a 3,825 lbf Allison J33-A-17 booster jet. [4] Ford's Aviation Division believed that it had a simpler solution. The four piston engines of the B-33B would be replaced by an equal number of propeller-turbine engines - 1,760 shp General Electric TG-100 turboprops - akin to those planned for the upcoming Ryan XF2R-1 'Dark Shark'.

Ford was able to negotiate an agreement with Consolidated Vultee to provide details of its TG-100 installation from its mixed-power XP-81 fighter. [5] A simulation of the proposed installation (and its cowling) was made up and installed on the inside port wing position of Ford's patrol bomber mock up. The operational concept was that the 'XPBR-1' Forrestal would employ its outboard engines as boosters during take-off and in certain combat situations. Otherwise, those engines would be shut down and their propellers feathered to conserve fuel.
Also argued by Ford was that crew conversion from PB4Y Privateer to 'PBR-1' Forrestal would be very simple since the airframes had much in common. The Bureau of Aeronautics had its doubts.

The main concern for the BuAer was fuel burn. With two props feathered, the 'PBR-1' would be underpowered. But, with all four turboprops running, the Forrestal's fuel consumption would be excessive. There were also justifiable concerns over whether the T31 - as the TG-100 was designated in service - would ever achieve its planned output of 2,300 shp. Ford was congratulated on its effort received no other  encouragement. Despite the ease with which an 'XPBR-1' demonstrator could have been created, no prototype was ordered. Martin did receive a small order for its P4M but Lockheed-Vega was the big winner. The standard US Navy patrol bomber became the piston-engined P2V Neptune. The turboprops time had yet to come.

_____________________________________________

[1] Like the B-33B, the Navy's Privateer shared the wing and tailplane of the XB-24N.

[2] The aircraft's name was an obvious appeal to the vanity of the Secretary of the Navy. James Forrestal would prove a tragic figure but, unfortunately for Ford's Aviation Division marketing, he was not a vain man.

[3] This Sperry nose turret was much more compact than the Erco 250 SH mounted in the nose of Privateers. This better suited the modified Marauder nose profile but would have demanded gunners of smaller stature.

[4] With the 1950 P2V-5F variant, the Neptune also became 'mixed power' - adding two 3,400 lbf Westinghouse J34-WE-34 booster turbojets in underwing pods.

[5] Consolidated Vultee had no dog in the patrol bomber fight. The San Diego firm had also moved on to YP-81s with later GE TG-110 turboprops on revised mounts. Ford stuck with the heavier TG-100 for commonality with the USN's Ryan fighter.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on November 09, 2020, 05:30:04 AM
So much tail... :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 09, 2020, 06:50:39 AM
Is post war sweeeet...  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 10, 2020, 11:49:54 AM
Thanks folks  :D

... makes me wonder about a Rolls-Royce Vulture engined Wellington as well.

One growth possibility for the Vickers Wellington medium bomber had been variants powered by the new Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 engines. An enlarged version would eventually emerge as the Vickers Type 422 Warwick but, initially at least, the Ministry of Aircraft Production had no interest in a smaller variant based more closely upon the Wellington. That changed with the fall of the Low Countries and France. Suddenly, there was need for cross-Channel bombers which could carry heavier bomb loads.

A Vickers Type 404 prototype was quickly converted from a standard Wellington Mk.IA. Not obvious were the enlarged tailplane dictated by the much more powerful engines. Development flying proceeded apace with key issues identified as balance and propeller clearance. The latter problem had been anticipated and de Havilland was developing 'paddle-bladed' propellers of reduced diameter for the production model. To solve nose heaviness, it was decided to re-arrange some interior equipment and mount a powered dorsal turret , served to shift the c/g aft.

With those changes in place - along with a strengthened main undercarriage - the production-type Vickers Type 425  Waterloo Mk.I was introduced on the Weybridge production line. As a service type, the Waterloo was regarded as a short-range heavy bomber. All that meant in practice was that the Waterloo could carry the Wellington's heaviest payload at a somewhat higher speed but paid the price in a greater fuel burn. Only with a reduced bombload could the Waterloo reach many targets in the Reich. As a result, the Waterloo was overshadowed by its longer-ranged stablemate as well as the true heavy bombers which came along later.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 11, 2020, 01:34:13 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 11, 2020, 10:33:26 AM
Thanks Greg. I fiddled with the fin/rudder for fun but it probably wasn't necessary - the later Wimpy with twin Hercules had about the same power as the Vultures.

On the name, my dodge was that Waterloo is a district in London. Not quite fitting within the RAF 'city' name policy for bombers but close enough for whiffery  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 08, 2020, 05:33:01 AM
No real backstory here. I got a suggestion from sporting25 for the Invasion of Japan/Japan ‘46 GB concept. This involved USMC use of a re-engined Beech Grizzly. However, in the end, I pilfered the Marine content and expanded it for my P-61 derivative:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9576.msg179626#msg179626 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9576.msg179626#msg179626)

Still, an Allison V-3420-powered XA-38 Grizzly was too cool a concept to just abandon. So, I've done it up as a prototype re-engined by Beechcraft to get around their engine supply problem (since the B-29 had priority for the XA-38's original R-3350 radials). In reality, of course, Beechcraft faced other supply problems with their XA-38. Eg: the Grizzly's GE remote-controlled barbettes and their fire-control system were ear-marked for the Douglas A-26/A-26B.

I modelled my fictional XA-38B cowlings on those of the V-3420-powered Lockheed XP-58 (but removed its unnecessary turbochargers). Again reality rears its ugly head ... the 'Chain Lightning' programme was abandoned after Wright Field examiners realized what a maintenance hog it was. Adding paired V-3420 engines to that mix wasn't going to help  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on December 08, 2020, 07:15:06 AM
Thx XD
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 08, 2020, 09:22:11 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:

It's long struck me that the XA-38 is one of the least bellicose appearing purpose-designed
warplanes of the period.
 ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 08, 2020, 11:12:09 AM
No real backstory here. I got a suggestion from sporting25 for the Invasion of Japan/Japan ‘46 GB concept. This involved USMC use of a re-engined Beech Grizzly. However, in the end, I pilfered the Marine content and expanded it for my P-61 derivative:

[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9576.msg179626#msg179626[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9576.msg179626#msg179626[/url])

Still, an Allison V-3420-powered XA-38 Grizzly was too cool a concept to just abandon. So, I've done it up as a prototype re-engined by Beechcraft to get around their engine supply problem (since the B-29 had priority for the XA-38's original R-3350 radials). In reality, of course, Beechcraft faced other supply problems with their XA-38. Eg: the Grizzly's GE remote-controlled barbettes and their fire-control system were ear-marked for the Douglas A-26/A-26B.

I modelled my fictional XA-38B cowlings on those of the V-3420-powered Lockheed XP-58 (but removed its unnecessary turbochargers). Again reality rears its ugly head ... the 'Chain Lightning' programme was abandoned after Wright Field examiners realized what a maintenance hog it was. Adding paired V-3420 engines to that mix wasn't going to help  :P

That does look nice.  I will agree with jcf, though, that there are other aircraft that look far more bellicose.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on December 08, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
XA-38B = Greatness
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 09, 2020, 01:42:38 AM
Hmmm...one of these in Biafran war markings... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 10, 2020, 03:52:49 PM
Hmmm...one of these in Biafran war markings... ;)

I like it! But my starting point will be Jon's comment about lack of bellicosity ...

When, at long last, R-3350 engines became available, a small production run of A-38C Grizzly attack aircraft was begun. Then Japan capitulated. Left with a cancelled contract and more than a dozen virtually completed airframes, Beechcraft bought A-38C components back from the US government for scrap value. The initial scheme was to produce new fuselages to combine with the Grizzly powerplants, undercarriage, wings, and empennage. However, by the time that Bill Cassidy's project team had completed the fuselage design, it was clear to Beechcraft management that there was going to be a glut of relatively cheap, surplus airframes available for the fast transport/executive aircraft role.

After a time with A-38Cs sat weathering in the weeds at Wichita, it was decided to either find a role or scrap the stored A-38Cs and unfinished components. The US military showed no interest in a fast target-tug nor were civilian operators interested in a fast photo-survey mount. So, it was decided to adapt the Grizzlys to the new water bomber role. The rear cockpit was stripped of all equipment other than radios which helped rebalance the c/g without the 75 mm nose gun fitted (although, in truth, civilianized A-38Cs were always tail-heavy). The most noticeable modification, though, was the enormous belly tank for fire retardant.

Bottom The prototype 'Pregnant Grizzly' water bomber conversion of the A-38C. Seen here after being sold, this was the aircraft that Beechcraft test pilot Vern Carstens successfully landed after it threw a propeller in flight.

The Grizzly water bomber conversions were generally successful in their new role but proved uneconomical compared with other conversions - like the Douglas A-26 and North American B-25. As such, many were 'de-tanked' and sold off for other roles. Most became target tugs with foreign governments. However, one ex-water bomber Grizzly surreptitiously returned to the type's originally-planned attack role. Sold to Lusaka-based Kariba Aerial Survey plc by the Pan Eurasian Trading Co. of Luxembourg, this aircraft would never arrive in Zambia.

A 'Biafran Bear' - The Grizzly Goes to Africa

Top Beech Grizzly in fresh Biafran Air Force colours. Beneath the underwing Biafran roundel, traces of intended (or pretended?) ownership can be seen where the Zambian registration 9J-BPS has been removed. On its nose, 'White 5' (Ocha ise) sports the patriotic slogan 'Ibo kwenu! Yaa!' (Ibo Solidarity). [1] Fixed armament is a single, nose-mounted 37 mm Nudelman N-37 cannon. [2] Note the non-standard glazings - hold-overs from this aircraft's days as a water bomber.

Delivered by Ernest Koenig (via Portuguese Guinea) at the end of April 1967, the aircraft was operational by the first week of May. After test-flights by future BAF commander Godwin Ezeilo, the Grizzly was turned over to Dutch mercenary pilot, Maarten Dahmen. Plans to augment armament on the Grizzly were never realized. [3] The BAF Grizzly was lost on its sixth mission, coming down in the Bight of Biafra. No cause was determined although the aircraft had a history of propeller problems and other mechanical glitches. No trace was ever found of pilot Dahmen or his observer, van Reiseghem.

___________________________________

[1] These days, this would be rendered as 'Igbo kwenu! Yaa!' ('Ibo' being an out-dated spelling).

[2] The origin of this N-37 is unknown - the Nigerian AF is not known to have lost any of its MiG-17 fighters (or MiG-15UTI trainers). The BAF Grizzly was fitted with a Reflexsikte m/37 sight smuggled in from Sweden (where it had been taken from a scrapped Seversky J9 fighter).

[3] It was intended to install wing and belly bomb racks along with fixed 12.7 mm Browning machine guns.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 11, 2020, 02:02:33 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 11, 2020, 02:31:36 AM
Another thought (Can't help myself sorry):  What about a small number of these (say 1 SQN's worth) being based in Japan and then rushed to Korea in 1950 to be used in their original anti-tank/Ground Attack role against the advancing North Korean forces. 

One could probably use some of the A-26 schemes:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8225/8487415709_1064358ea8_b.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/zO-NNixo0gPg1C-P4Es0zvmjU0ExSBeXHnWf9wCKUixcuMjNEKoAk4qbYWSpfaEpxXGlKUIZsHQ0Bwtdyob-_0biyIUUmts)
(https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8104/8488510744_3be86e2928.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 12, 2020, 05:51:54 AM
Another thought ...

Oh, one more can't hurt  ;D

'Pinnochio 2' was a stock standard Beechcraft A-38C armed with a 75 mm M10 autocannon. Here, the aircraft is shown carrying twin 500 lb bombs on its wing racks. More normally, the Grizzly would be seen carrying a load of 5-inch HVAR rockets (to 'distract' enemy anti-aircraft gunners on the run in) with drop tanks on the wing pylons. The M10 was never terrifically reliable and restricted A-38C use to daylight hours but the 75 mm gun was powerful.

Beechcraft tried to interest the USAF in an 'Advanced Grizzly' rebuild by resurrecting the Army's WW2 Oldsmobile T9E2 105mm recoilless gun on the T17 Aircraft Mount. A second, equally unsuccessful proposal was to rearm some A-38C airframes with a nose-mounted 40 mm Bofors gun. The 'Grizzly 40' was intended as an anti-AAA escort for 75 mm-armed A-38Cs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on December 12, 2020, 08:05:17 AM
All 3 variants (40, 75 and 105mm guns) flying at the same time = 1950 AC-130 "standing by"  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 13, 2020, 01:18:17 AM
 :smiley:

I wish there was a 1/48 scale kit of the XA-38 available.  I really like the idea of a Korean War version.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 15, 2020, 10:45:21 AM
In September 1943, the US Marine Corps' Deputy Commandant for Aviation paid a visit to the Vultee Aircraft Corporation at Downey, CA. Maj-Gen RS Geiger was inquiring about future trainers for Marine Aviators. The Vultee Model 54 was already in USMC service as the SNV Valiant but 'Jiggs' Geiger was looking for sturdier trainers for future dive bomber pilots. Doubtless the Deputy Commandant had in mind a higher-powered SNV, so he would have been caught off guard by the suggestion of Vultee engineers - the use of actual dive bombers.

The Vultee Vengeance had been exported under Lend-Lease but the US Army was using their A-35s mainly as target tugs. As it happened, the US Navy had placed orders for modified airframes for use as land-based torpedo bombers as the TBV-1 Georgia. Would the Marines be interested in taking over "the senior Service's" order? The Bureau of Aeronautics had placed that TBV-1 order on hold due to performance concerns. But Vultee's design department had been working to address Vengeance performance. This involved the use of more lightweight equipment but, most importantly, the over-taxed Wright R-2600 engine would be replaced by a more powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial. The Army had declined this 'A-35C' development ... might the Marines be interested?

Under this proposal, the TBV contract would be replaced by early delivery of R-2600-powered SBV-1 trainers (in the form of surplus Army A-35As). These would be followed by new-production, lightweight SBV-2s powered by the R-2800. Offered an immediate opportunity to test-fly an undelivered A-35A, Maj-Gen Geiger was sold. [1] Now he had to sell the concept to his Commandant and to the Bureau of Aeronautics. A memo was prepared arguing that Vultee dive bombers for the Marine Air Groups would reduce demands for the carrier-capable Curtiss SB2C Helldivers. When 'Jiggs' Geiger returned to the SW Pacific, his place was taken by his former chief of staff, Maj-Gen Louis Woods. It was Woods who oversaw procurement of what became the Marines' SBV-2 Vengeance. [2]

As land-based dive bombers, the first SBV-2s were effectively re-engined A-35Bs fitted with some US Navy equipment. However, forward of the bomb bay, the structure of the SBV-2 was completely new. This was to accommodate the 2,000 hp P&W R-2800-10 Double Wasp radial. This 18-cylinder engine had very different proportions than the A-35's 14-cylinder R-2600 as well as being heavier than that Wright powerplant. [3] To speed the SBV-2 development process, the Bureau of Aeronautics specified that engine bearers and engine auxiliary equipment be those of the similarly-powered Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat fighter. [4]

Bottom The XSBV-2 Vengeance - an A-35B conversion - under trial at NAS Pensacola in December 1943. Aft of its engine bay, the stripped, natural metal finish was identical to that of the USAAF's final A-35B deliveries. Representative of the first dozen production SBV-2s, the prototype retained its Army-style framed canopy hood and sextet of wing guns. Note the deployed twin .50s in the rear cockpit complete with armour plate protection for the gunner.

Like the prototype, 'pre-production' SBV-2s were based on partially-completed A-35B airframes. Upon acceptance, the tail-down cockpit visibility complaints from the Navy's TBV assessment re-emerged. Vultee addressed this by increasing the range of pilot seat elevation and adopted a bulged, clear-blown canopy. The new pilot's canopy was introduced on the follow-on SBV-2B series but all pre-production models (other than one damaged SBV-2 relegated to instructional airframe duties) were upgraded to SBV-2A status with modified pilot's seats and canopies. Other than some minor equipment changes, the full-production SBV-2B differed mainly in having a reduced wing armament of 4 x .50-calibre Brownings to reduce all-up weight.

In late 1944, the SBV-2Bs deployed for combat - being escorted on their flight from the Solomons to Leyte in the Philippines by North American PBJ-1 bombers of Marine Air Group 61. These dive bombers reached Tacloban airstrip on Leyte Island on 03 December 1944. Assigned to MAG-32 commanded by Col Clayton R. Jerome, the Vengeance replaced SBD-5 dive bombers of VMSB-243 and VMSB-244. [5] By coincidence, the first combat mission was flown on 'Pearl Harbor Day' - 07 December 1944. Escorted by Corsair fighters of VMF-211, six Vengeances from the VMSB-244 'Bombing Banshees' drew first blood - damaging a Japanese destroyer at anchor in Ormoc Bay. [6] Later in the day, VMSB-243 - the 'Flying Goldbricks' - had their opportunity. Three Japanese cargo ships and a troop transport were sunk.

Top 'Daisy Mae' - a Vultee SBV-2B Vengeance of VMSB-243, Leyte, early 1945. Philippines-based Vengeances all received blue tail bands to distinguish them from USAAF aircraft. Individual aircraft numbers were applied in white over that ID band and, often, on the nose as well (here in Insignia Blue). Other markings are the squadron's 'Flying Goldbrick' on the fin and namesake artwork on the cowling - Daisy Mae Scragg being a character from the L'il Abner comic strip.

The last SBV-2B Vengeance was delivered from Vultee's Nashville Division in October 1944. The Marine-operated SBV-2Bs served with distinction in the Philippines until the end of the war. [7] No other Marines Vengeance model saw combat service. The SBV-3 was an unbuilt variant which was to have twin 20 mm cannons (and a AN/APS-6 radar pod on its starboard wing). Also stillborn was the turreted SBV-4. The sole XSBV-4 was an SBV-2A re-engined with a 2,100 hp P&W R-2800-18W engine driving a four-bladed Aeroproducts propeller. The unbuilt SBV-4A was to restore the full wing armament of six .50s.

__________________________

[1] 'Jiggs' Geiger had trained at NAS Pensacola. He became Naval Aviator #49 (and Marine Corps Aviator #5) in June 1917.

[2] Initially, the BuAer the designated the new aircraft as TBV-3 (the trainers being TBV-2s) and re-assigned the name Georgia. The designation quickly became more 'role specific' and the name change back to Vengeance.

[3] At 52.8 inches, the R-2800 had a smaller diameter than the 55 inch R-2600. However, while the latter was only 62 inches long, the R-2800 stretched a full 81.4 inches. The R-2800 also weighed over 300 lbs more than the original Wright R-2600 but Vultee was able to accommodate this by shifting the P&W engine further aft and re-arranging some internal equipment to restore the centre of gravity.

[4] On the XSBV-2 prototype, some cowling panels were also taken from the Hellcat. However, it was found that the XSBV-2 required additional cowl vents for cooling. For production aircraft, the SBV-2 cowlings were completely revised - any remaining similarities to the F6F were purely internal.

[5] MAG-32 VMSB-142 ('Wild Horses') would retain its Douglas SBD-6 Dauntless dive bombers which were better suited for some close-support missions. The Vengeance was faster and better-armed but the beautifully-handling SBDs possessed superior diving characteristics.

[6] A direct hit was scored on the IJN destroyer but the dropped 1,000 delay-fused lb M65 GP bomb failed to explode.

[7] The SBVs stayed in-theatre at the Marines' insistence, despite the best efforts of General GC Kenney - Commander, Allied Air Forces, SW Pacific - to have the type removed.

BTW: This profile began life as Teodor Liviu Morosanu's A27-288.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 15, 2020, 02:51:19 PM
Nice!  Like the story and the profiles are inspiring. 

Would the torpedo have been carried semi-exposed, partially within the bomb bay or carried on an external rack? 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 16, 2020, 02:25:32 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 16, 2020, 11:21:39 AM
Cheers folks!

...Would the torpedo have been carried semi-exposed, partially within the bomb bay or carried on an external rack?

Excellent question Jeff. I've never seen anything but a brief comment on the Vultee TBV-1 Georgia order having been cancelled.

I got the impression that it was to be a least-mod derivative of the Vengeance. If so, my guess would be an external rack - if I've scaled it right, the existing bomb bay was nowhere near long enough for the USN's Mark XIII aerial torpedo.

Another Vengeance that I'd never seen illustrated was the one-off YA-31C re-engined with a Wright R-3350-18. Of course, once I'd knocked together a speculative image ... suddenly, Google Images decides to deliver  ::)

https://picryl.com/media/vultee-ya31c-vengeance-at-the-naca-50dd21

Anyway, my version pushes the R-3350 aft (for c/g reasons) and has a revised lower fuselage for a semi-recessed 'fish'. Because, well why not  ;D


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 16, 2020, 12:40:24 PM
On the TBD Devastator the torpedo was carried semi-exposed.  The aft end being contained within the cavity that would normally carry a 500 pound bomb and the straps securing the torpedo to the aircraft were secured to the forward bomb shackles.  In the bomber mission, a pair of 500 pound bombs would be carried on these same shackles.  There was an aerodynamic fairing that was also installed on the aircraft for the torpedo mission that would be removed for the bomber mission.  Innovative but also cumbersome. 

With regards to your attempt to "size" the Mk.13 Torpedo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_13_torpedo) it appears to be a bit on the lean side.  Definitely need to phatten that phish up a little to get the proper proportions.  Mk.13 was on the short and stubby side when compared to the standard 21.0" (533 mm) submarine and surface ship torpedo (details for the Mk.14 Submarine Torpedo at this link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo)).  The Mk.13 was also just a wee bit larger in diameter at 22.5"/571.5mm and noticeably shorter at 161.0"(4.09m)

This image may help with your "adjustments" for size and length: Wikipedia > Mk.13 Aircraft Torpedo general arrangement drawing (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Mark_13_torpedo_general_arrangement_Ordnance_Pamphlet_629%28A%29_US_Navy_July_1942.jpg)

One other detail regarding the torpedo and how it was carried.  The weapon was secured to the aircraft with a length of cable that was wrapped around the torpedo body at or near the center of gravity.  This rope or strap was then secured to the bomb shackle or shackles (in the case of the TBD) and relied on both shackles being loosed at the same time in order to properly launch or drop the weapon.  In very few moving picture clips you can see the strap falling away to splash in to the ocean as the torpedo is launched.  Even today the standard ASW torpedoes on some helicopters such as the SH-3 Sea King for example are secured in the very same manner as the Mk.13.  I am not sure how modern ASW aircraft carry their torpedo internally or on a wing stores pylon as I have yet to see one up close and in any detail. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on December 17, 2020, 07:46:37 AM
Torpedoes on P-8 pylons:
(https://iho.hu/img/repules/111027_P8/P-8A-Poseidon-test-aircraft-T1.jpg)

Torpedo being prepped for P-8 bay:
(https://cnet3.cbsistatic.com/img/y6MDIDiKwNNhTFuY5POJwX-k750=/980x0/2013/12/23/f6753a51-a5c4-11e3-a24e-d4ae52e62bcc/Poseidon_torpedo.jpg)

Torpedo in P-3:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/P-3C_Orion_bomb_bay_with_exercise_torpedo_in_March_2015.JPG/1024px-P-3C_Orion_bomb_bay_with_exercise_torpedo_in_March_2015.JPG)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 17, 2020, 10:02:02 AM
@JCF - Jon, the first image shows 2000 lb/900kg Mk.65 Quickstrike Mines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_mine#US_mines).  These weapons are secured to the stores pylons by suspension lugs and ejected by explosive charge to clear the weapon from the stores pylon. 

The other two images show the torpedo with the adapter straps to allow for carriage on a stores pylon.  This is a further adaptation of the original strap used on the earlier torpedoes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2020, 09:20:36 AM
Wow, I wasn't even close ;P  Thanks for the links Jeff, those were really helpful for getting the correct proportions and dimensions for the Mark XIII/Mk 13. For those who want to know:

Bliss-Leavitt Mark 13 torpedo - Weight 2,216 lbs; Diameter 22.5 inches (0.5715 m); Length 161 inches (4.0894 m)

My revised image shows (at the bottom) a fairly standard A-36A as a highly-speculative TBV-1 Georgia. Of necessity, the Mk 13 torpedo is carried externally (below the too-short bomb bay).

Complicating all this is the introduction of the Mk 1 kit - aka the 'Pickle Barrel' drag ring on the torpedo nose and the 'box' stabilizer. This kit was meant to allow the Mark 13 to be dropped at both a higher altitude and speed. As the name suggests, the wooden drag ring slowed the torpedo for water entry. The plywood 'box' stabilizer stopped the torpedo from rotating while airborne. On impact, softwood pins sheared releasing this stabilizer. [1]

https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/mk13-torpedo-during-the-falklands-war/

The upper view is my sense of what would be necessary to turn the Vengeance airframe into a torpedo bomber which could carry the Mark 13 with Mk kit. First is more power - in the form of a Wright R-3350. I've used a deeper B-29 cowling which means that the belly line can be lowered. This would help streamline the blunt 'Pickle Barrel' while in flight. The bomb bay doors have also been deepened. Even still, the torpedo would not be fully enclosed by those doors. I've also shown the 'box' stabilizer exposed in a cut-out in the lower rear fuselage.

All-in-all, a lot of work for very little return. As rendered, the TBV-1 Georgia would be less able than the carrier-capable Grumman TBF already in service. Obviously, the BuAer made the right decision in cancelling that Vultee contract.

_______________________

[1] I'm not quite sure how the 'Pickle Barrel' was released. It was held in place by a 'stick' across the nose of the torpedo. Did that 'stick' break when hitting the water surface, allowing the annular drag ring to slid aft along the torpedo's body? On did the light, wooden 'Pickle Barrel' simply shatter on impact? I don't know.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on December 18, 2020, 04:35:38 PM
Glad to be of assistance.  The revised torpedo definitely looks better and the further modifications to the fuselage for semi-conformal carriage looks very practical. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2020, 10:24:40 AM
A last kick at the Vengeance can (sort of) but no real backstory ...

I'm imagining the Vultee XA-46 Vulture study as a low-risk backup for the R-4360-9 powered Vultee XA-41. The design brief was to combine as many existing components as possible with an in-service engine. The Pratt & Whitney R-2800 was chosen as powerplant. The airframe mated the outer wing panels of the Vultee XP-54 'Swoose Goose' fighter with the tail surfaces and fuselage from the Vengeance. To meet the new Attack requirement, that fuselage was revised as a single-seater (with a large fuel tank taking up most of the rest of the former cockpit area).

Top The original proposal with slightly-raised pilot's position covered by the canopy from the 'Swoose Goose' (albeit without the XP-54's fancy seat elevator). Fixed armament consisted of twelve .50-calibre Brownings or four 20 mm cannons and four 50-cals.

Bottom Second XA-46 submission with revised cowling and P-47 cockpit canopy adopted. A dorsal fin extension has been incorporated to improve stability and a third fixed armament option added - that of four 37 mm autocannons.

In the end, the Army Air Force concluded that - other than the enclosed bomb bay - the XA-46 Vulture would add little capability not already possessed by the USAAF's plentiful Republic P-47 fighter-bombers. Unfortunately for Convair/Vultee, that conclusion was also later extended to their larger XA-41 prototype.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 21, 2020, 02:07:32 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 22, 2020, 07:24:11 AM
Just playing with an old notion. The Curtiss SB2C was close to cancellation a number of times. But the prototype Douglas XSB2D-1 didn't fly until April 1943 with the production single-seat BTD-1 Destroyer not flying until March 1944. What about a less complex development than the Destroyer? I am, of course, talking about a further evolution of the stalwart SBD Dauntless.

So here - playing with Witold Jaworski's amazing 3D model of the SBD-5 - is the SB3D-1 Super Dauntless.

Changes? Replacing the single-row Cyclone is a Wright R-2600 driving a four-blade propeller. To clear that prop, the main undercarriage is extended in height and beefed up. Those main undercarriage legs compress as they retract but more space is still needed to stow the retracted gear. The revised gear is housed in an extended wing centre section (the outboard wing panels stay essentially unchanged except in accommodating an increased fixed-gun armament - four wing-mounted .50-inch Brownings replacing the SBD's twin cowl guns).

To balance the R-2600, the rear fuselage has been slightly extended and the vertical tailplane enlarged. The horizontal tails have been given dihedral (I was generally going for a Douglas A-20 tie-in on the tail). I went with a retractable tailwheel just because the RW fixed tailwheel on the Dauntless always looked a little incongruous to me. Anyway, probably a silly idea ... but I had fun with it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 22, 2020, 07:28:31 AM
Doesn't look silly. Looks pretty cool! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on December 22, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
Doesn't look silly. Looks pretty cool! 8)
+1
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 26, 2020, 07:59:25 AM
Thanks guys! But I'm pretty sure that this one is silly ;)

I based this on a wind tunnel model: https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcuburke/id/84/ (https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcuburke/id/84/)

This 1944 photograph was taken by E. Burke Wilford who designed pretty much exclusively for the Pennsylvania Aircraft Syndicate. A number of those designs were based on existing airframes. That said, I fairly sure that this one was just an old wind tunnel model that was kicking around - after all, who'd want to further develop the P-39 in 1944?

Nevertheless, I chose to do my version as an operational type - courtesy of a 1/48 Monogram P-39 built by Scott Van Aken. Wing surfaces have been reduced (as befits a convertiplane, I suppose). The big change was that stoppable (and asymmetrical) rotor blade.

There's no details of how that rotor was supposed to work but it seems to have been some form of tip-jet (with an intake on the short end). So, was the aircraft's engine also meant to act as a gas generator for the rotor? Who knows? What I'd really like to know is how that rotor mast was to be braced to the top of the V-1710. That would been tricky  ;D

I based the reduced wing shape on the wind tunnel model. But inset are original artwork which show some detail differences. The sketch on the right shows square-cut wing surfaces and (possibly) a fixed undercarriage. The 'short' arm of the rotor also looks proportionately shorter. On the sideview (left), the rotor proportions look the same as the wind tunnel model. But, whereas that latter clearly had a P-39 tailplane, the sideview's tail has a revised outline including a forward raking of the fin/rudder which also has a ventral extension. I'm not sure which, if any, of these variants represents a 'final' design.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/wilford-pennsylvania-aircraft-syndicate-projects.21368/#post-416457 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/wilford-pennsylvania-aircraft-syndicate-projects.21368/#post-416457)

________________________

Feliz Navidad folks ... or Happy St Stephen's Day, Date Line depending   :D  :icon_beer:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2021, 11:57:21 AM
I've posted a story I'm calling Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea
-- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9681.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9681.0)

But, that won't be everyone's cuppa. So, for those who prefer their profiles 'straight up', here is a Japanese Air Self-Defence Force UCAV (based on surplus USAF F-16A airframes) and a manned development aircraft leading to those UCAVs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2021, 11:59:04 AM
This second installment on the Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea thread features different designs.

At the bottom is a post Mid-Life Upgrade Mitsubishi F-2M Kai (which incorporates elements of the earlier A-16AJ UCAV modifications). This F-2M Kai strike fighter is carrying Mitsubishi ASM-3 Kai anti-shipping missiles under its wings.

At the top is the unrealized concept for the Subaru Aerospace AXS UCAV and its dorsally-mounted Kawasaki XASM-5 Kobanzame (Remora) payload. Insets show the operating phases of the Kobanzame anti-shipping missile - top right, the XASM-5 igniting its hybrid rocket booster motor for launch; top left, the Kobanzame in level flight using air-breathing ramjet propulsion and vectoring nozzles for attitude control.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2021, 09:51:18 AM
This was a notion that came to me for the Scale-o-rama GB ... but it seemed like cheating. So I present it here.
_______________________________

In July 1939, the Air Ministry purchased the experimental Martin-Baker MB.2 prototype. However, it was clear that there would be no further major modifications nor any chance of a production contract for the Napier Dagger-powered fighter. James Martin was encouraged to continue work on his next design - a larger, more powerful fighter with a retractable undercarriage and cannon armament. This fighter was to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 or Napier Sabre H-24 engine (the Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 having been quickly rejected). This new MB.3 used typical Martin-Baker construction techniques to ensure ease of production.

With the outbreak of war, the Ministry saw higher value in readily-producable fighters. James Martin was ordered to rescale his MB.3 design for the available Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. [1] No longer an experimental, technology demonstrator, the revised MB.3 was to be a full production 'emergency fighter'. The initial concept was quickly redrawn to approximately 70% of the original size. As per Ministry orders, the cockpit incorporated the canopy of the Supermarine Spitfire. The engine cowling was also loosely based upon that in-service fighter. The rest of the design was entirely original - including the triangular fin-and-rudder reluctantly accepted by James Martin.

Armament for this new MB.3B was to be the four 20 mm Oerlikon cannons planned for the revised MB.2 prototype. This concept was accepted by the AM and Ministry of Aircraft Production as the Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.I 'emergency fighter' [2] and ordered into immediate production under the 'Shadow Factory' scheme. Almost at once, production plans hit a snag - there were only small numbers of Oerlikon aircraft cannons available (with priority being given to naval AA gun production). Accordingly, the cannon-armed Buzzard Mk.I was passed over in favour of machine gun-armed Buzzard Mk.IIs.

The Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.II was armed with a dozen .303-inch Browning guns firing outside the propeller arc. Alas, there were even shortages of Browning machine guns at the height of the Battle of Britain. As such, production was quickly shifted to the eight-gunned Buzzard Mk.IIA. The first Mk.IIAs (including some Buzzard Mk.II adaptations) entered service with No.238 Squadron at RAF Middle Wallop at the beginning of November 1940. [3]

Bottom Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IIA eight-gunned fighter newly-delivered to No.238 Squadron RAF at Middle Wallop, early December 1940.

Ordered straight off the drawing board, the Buzzard had no prototype as such. Several of the early production Buzzard Mk.IIs remained with the RAF's Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. Another 'non-standard' Buzzard Mk.II, R2494, was returned to the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company for experimental and development purposes. One change introduced was a revised, Martin patented cockpit hood. Slightly larger than the Spitfire-style canopy, it slid open and closed in a similar manner. However, frame for the sliding hood and 'quarter light' panels also had a pivot point at the extreme rear. In an emergency, the entire hood could be ejected by the pilot to simplify bailing out.

With its revised canopy, R2494 was intended to act as a prototype Buzzard Mk.III. However, that machine gun-armed variant was passed over for the Oerlikon-armed Buzzard Mk.IV. The Mk.IV entered service with No.174 Squadron which had formed on Hurricanes at RAF Manston on 03 March 1942. The Buzzard Mk.IVs arrived in time to participate in the raid on Dieppe in August 1942. In September and October of 1942, most of No.174's Buzzards were fitted with bomb racks to prove the type as a fighter-bomber.

Top Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IV of No.174 Squadron at RAF Manston during the Dieppe raid. Note that, at this stage, AA436 has yet to be fitted with its belly bomb rack.

________________________________________

[1] Ironically, it had been the Rolls-Royce Merlin that James Martin had wanted for his MB.2 fighter. At the time, no Merlins could be spared for an experimental fighter. Now the engines unavailable to Martin-Baker were first the Rolls-Royce Griffon and then the delayed Napier Sabre II.

[2] This name originated with the Air Ministry not with Martin-Baker. Although it has never been officially confirmed, it is believed that the popular name was prompted by the Martinsyde F.4 Buzzard fighter of WW1.

[3] No.238 Squadron had been reformed at RAF Tangmere on 16 May 1940. It became operational on Hawker Hurricanes from RAF Middle Wallop in July 1940 before transitioning to the Buzzard Mk.IIA.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 25, 2021, 03:54:06 AM
Intriguing.  :smiley:

70% size seems very small as that'd be a roughly 24' 9" span and 24' 6"
length.

The MB 2 was almost the same size as MB 3; 34' span, 34' 9" length vs.
35' 4" span, 35' length. The Spitfire is 36' 10" span, 29' 11" length, and
the Miles M.20 was pretty much Spitfire size.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2021, 03:26:00 AM
Thanks Jon. You're probably right about excessive scaling. I had a span of 7.54 m (24.73 feet) and length of 7.48 m (24.54 feet) ... the nose of my Buzzard being slightly longer than a purely scaled MB.3.

Partly, I may have overemphasized the scale-o-rama. But I was also trying to maintain the brutish appeal of the RW MB.3. I probably should have made an exception for the cowling (for example, were the cowling made more tapered, I could have gone with an 80-85% scaling).

One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 26, 2021, 03:46:57 AM
One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).

I may be wrong, but I don't think the reduced area would be 70% of the original number.

A rectangle measuring 5 X 3 has an area of 15; 15 X .70 = 10.5

however going back to the original dimensions of 5 X 3:
5 X .70 = 3.5; 3 X .70 = 2.1; 3.5 X 2.1 = 7.35
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 27, 2021, 07:13:53 AM
Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 27, 2021, 11:04:31 AM
Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight  :-[

The wing area would be 128.38 ft2(11.93 m2).

So about 49% of the original.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 27, 2021, 11:13:18 AM
I think a span of around 27' would be in the 184 ft2 neighbourhood.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 28, 2021, 04:39:40 PM
Basic area scaling equation:

Given a rectangle of x x y dimensions at 1:1 scale,
Then modifying it to 1:a scale is;

(1/a x x) x (1/a x y)

= 1/2a x x x y

= x x y
    2a


So, for example, a rectangle of 10m x 5m = 50m2 at 1:1 scale
Therefore at 1:2 scale we get;

(1/2 x 10)m x (1/2 x 5)m
= (1/(2 x 2)) x 10m x 5m
= 1/4 x 50m2
= 12.5m2
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2021, 03:17:49 AM
 :o  What is straightforward and comforting for one, instills befuddlement and panic in another!

My new formula is: (d/t x e) ~ (Sc/a) = a

or: (don't) x ever (Scale) area = again !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 12, 2021, 08:53:00 AM
Another stab at using the MB.3 ... kind of (but, this time, no scaling!).
______________________________________________

'The Hucclecote Horror' - Hawker Typhoon F.Mk.X

On 27 March 1942, deputy-chief test pilot Michael Daunt was above rural Gloucestershire, 'wringing out' R7625, a Gloster-built Typhoon IA. It was a fine day and the test flight was going well until the Napier Sabre's high-pitched scream abruptly cut out. With its engine seized, Daunt dropped his powerless 'Tiffie' down for a belly-landing in a field outside of Gloucester. Unfortunately, the crippled fighter passed between two mature trees which swept the thick wings from the Typhoon. Those shorn remains were later collected and carted back to the Gloster Aeroplane Co. at Hucclecote.

Glosters were instructed to rebuild Typhoon R7625 in preparation for a new type of wing. The damaged fuselage centre section tubing was both repaired and adjusted for revised wing attachment points. The ruined wings were then replaced with experimental panels supplied by the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company. These wings - originally intended for a new Martin-Baker fighter design - were considerably thinner in profile than the Hawker originals. It was hoped that, along with strengthening of the tail section join, the Typhoon's structural problems would be resolved.

The resulting prototype conversion was designated Hawker Typhoon Mk.X. After trucking to Brockworth Aerodrome, the revised airframe was re-assembled for flight on 14 May. Taken aloft by Gloster's chief test pilot - F/O Gerry Saye - the revised fighter suffered none of the Typhoon Mk.IA's 'flutter' problems. However, the Sabre engine still gave more than its share of trouble. Saye brought R7625 back to Brockworth with smoke issuing from the cowling. Another Sabre with foaming oil and prematurely-worn sleeve-valves! Still, the airframe conversion could be declared a success.

Gloster Aeroplane Co. assembled remaining wing components into Typhoon Mk.IAs while tooling at Hucclecote was switched over to the Martin-Baker designed wing. Back at the parent firm Hawker's Kingston design office, the modified Typhoon Mk.X was derided as 'the Hucclecote Horror'. Under Sir Sydney Camm, a new 'Thin-Wing Typhoon' concept was already being designed. But Gloster's 'Horror' was a bird-in-hand. And, in any case, Glosters was acting under direct instruction from the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Meanwile, R7625 had been brought up to Typhoon Mk.XA standards by the installation of a wing armament of four 20 mm British Hispano cannons.

The rest, as they say, is history ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 14, 2021, 11:03:25 AM
In the Autumn of 1942, Republic Aviation was informed that the Army Air Force was no longer interested in the firm's latest fighter design. Chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, had designed the AP-18 fighter to meet the USAAF's Type Specification XC-622 for a high-altitude pursuit. But the resulting AP-18 -  tentatively designated XP-69 by the military - was a very large and complex design. [1] With America's entry into WW2, it had become apparent that it would take too long to develop the AP-18. Instead, the USAAF elected to focus on developments of Republic's existing P-47 Thunderbolt turbocharged pursuit. The AP-18/XP-69 was dropped.

The military designation for the abandoned AP-18 was shifted to a new design - the AP-21 low-altitude fighter-bomber. For this new XP-69A, the USAAF envisioned a P-47 derivative optimized for low-level work. But Alex Kartveli knew that the Thunderbolt's fuselage had effectively been designed around the P-47's massive turbocharger system and its bulky duct work. Instead, he proposed a heavily revised design using only the wings and tailplane of the Thunderbolt. This was agreed to by the USAAF and detail designs were drawn up. Kartveli and his assistant, Murray Burkow, produced an initial AP-21 design by March of 1942. It was effectively a 'turbo-less' Thunderbolt with large fuel tanks in the rear fuselage.

After review, a USAAF panel recommended a smaller, lighter airframe. Another suggestion was shifting from the high-demand Pratt & Whitney R-2800 to the Napier Sabre H-24 engine which was just about to enter production in the US. [2] Most of that Sabre production was for British end-use but the USAAF also saw an opportunity to take some pressure off of Pratt & Whitney. The scale of Kartveli's revised AP-21B was reduced by eliminating the wing fuselage attachments and simply joining the wing panels along the fuselage centreline. The tailplane remained standard P-47 components but the fuselage was redesigned to both shorten its length and accommodate the new, liquid-cooled powerplant. This AP-21B design was accepted for service as the P-69A Reaper.

Bottom Republic XP-69A Reaper prototype (AP-21B-01) when employed on USAAF armaments tests at Wright Field in late September 1942.

The first Republic XP-69A prototype was completed in late August 1942, flying from East Farmingdale, NY, on the power of an imported Napier Sabre IA. Production US H-2240-NK-1 'Saber' engines were not received from makers Nash Kelvinator until the middle of September. Because of the re-use of some Thunderbolt parts and components, production was acheived quickly but, due to P-47 priority, most of the early model P-69 Reapers were actually license-built by Curtiss in Buffalo, NY. The majority of Republic-built P-69As went to the Army Air Corps as trials aircraft. No cannon-armed P-69B-RE-2 Reaper would ever be completed.

The first service Reapers were P-69C-CU-4 models armed with an M4 37 mm Automatic Gun and a .50-cal Browning machine gun in each wing. The latter had 320 rounds per gun, the cannons only 40 rpg. The 37 mm cannon was potentially hard-hitting but its rounds had a totally different trajectory from the .50-calibre machine guns (complicating aiming). In the field, results with the P-69Cs were indifferent. Some units swore by the autocannons, others replaced the big guns with 20 mm British Hispanos where available. At home, production quickly shifted to the P-69D-RE-6 and Curtiss-built P-69G-CU-8 - both eight-gunned fighters powered by 2,250 hp Nash Kelvinator H-2240-NK-3 Sabers.

Top A UK-based Curtiss-built P-69C-CU-1 Reaper armed with twin 37 mm Automatic Gun, M4 cannons. The RAF-style yellow surround to the fuselage star was a recognition feature. The Insignia Yellow swastika markings on the forward fuselage represent ground attack missions (rather than aircraft 'kill' markings).

__________________________________________

[1] The AP-18/XP-69 was to be an enormous fighter - 15.70 m long, with a 15.75 m wingspan. A 2,500 hp Wright R-2160-3 Tornado - a 7-bank, 42-cylinder engine - would drive contra-rotating propellers. Empty weight was to be half again that of the Thunderbolt.

[2] When Napiers ecountered problems producing Sabre sleeve valves, several US Sundstrand centreless grinders were diverted to the UK. All of these high-value machines were lost to U-Boats. It was then decided to simply machine and harden the Napier sleeves in the US. Eventually, that scheme escalated to full-scale production of the Napier engines in Detroit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 16, 2021, 06:45:27 AM
A last kick at a Sabre-engined Thunderbolt derivative ...

Top Republic Reaper F.Mk.III prototype under test at Boscombe Down. This one-off was testing a Typhoon-style rear-vision quarterlight and Malcolm canopy. The improved rearview was welcomed by test pilots, the sideways-hinged Malcolm hood was not.

This aircraft has factory-applied paintwork - with an abnormally wide rear 'Sky' band and camouflage polished to an 'RAF Fighter Finish' (the latter hardly being representative of frontline conditions).

Bottom Republic P-69E-CU-11 Reaper of the 81st Fighter Squadron. The P-69E introduced a sliding Malcolm-type hood and improved review panel. Like the preceeding P-69Ds, all 'E models were delivered with a 'natural metal' finish.

42-9336 has a freshly-applied OD anti-glare panel (likely replacing its Bronze Green original). The 'Down Lo' & Dirty' personal emblem also looks new but the 78th Fighter Group 'checkerboard' motiv has been somewhat spoiled by a replacement lower-cowl panel. 'Down Lo' & Dirty' carries twin 500 lb AN/M64 GP bombs on its underwing racks.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 16, 2021, 05:35:25 PM
I like the latter two! 8) :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Empty Handed on April 18, 2021, 01:32:11 AM
Love the Reapers!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 18, 2021, 03:10:43 AM
Thanks folks!

Ever wondered what a Mustang would look like fitted with a Sabre? A bit porky, as it turns out  :o

I deepened the fuselage (except for the separate aft, tail section), enlarged the radiator bath and fin, and fitted a P-47-style height-increasing telescoping main gear. But, otherwise, the NA-73X remains unchanged.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on April 18, 2021, 03:47:00 AM
I would imagine that the Napier Sabre fitted into an XP-72 airframe would look really good.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 18, 2021, 05:29:42 AM
Thanks Robert ... that (and the XP-47H) was the general vibe I was going for with that deep radiator  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on April 18, 2021, 05:04:23 PM
That P69 concept is really hot.
I might be troubling you for permission to do something in 3D.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2021, 10:09:58 AM
... I might be troubling you for permission to do something in 3D.


Cool! Cheers SBD  :smiley:

Elsewhere, dy031101 was talking about bizjets as possible stand-in interceptors. The idea was for the ROCAF to use lower-performance aircraft to take the stain of frequent intercept missions off of Taiwan's frontline fighters. The 'targets' would be PRC Shaanxi Y-8s recce aircraft and Xian H-6 bombers.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3668.50#msg183874 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3668.50#msg183874)

I'd already been pondering the 'bizet-to-beer cans' fate of the early generation Learjets. Mightn't those airframes provide a cheap-and-cheerful option? Sure, the early Learjets are old, noisy, and fuel-hungry. But so too are the ROCAF's aging fleet of Northrop F-5Es.

I mention the Tiger IIs because their J85 turbojets are really just afterburning CJ610s. So, there's an element of engine commonality between the F-5Es and early-model Learjets.

So, here is a conceptual ROCAF Learjet 24 which I'm calling the 'Lier Lánjié Ji' (or 'Lear interceptor Aircraft' if Google Translate is believed). This aircraft has a crew of two - pilot in the cockpit [1] and a radar-operator in the cabin. The aircraft was twin underwing pylons, here mounting R.550 Magic II missiles.

The radar is mounted in the nose of the portside wing tip tank - inspired by the radar installation in Japan's U-36A. The set is a Thales RDY-2 as used by the ROCAF's Mirage 2000-5. The RDY-2 was chosen primarily for is size - ~500 mm - which happens to fit nicely into the tip tank (diameter 600 mm). [2]

_______________________________

[1] I am aware that, under FAR Part 25, the Learjet 24 didn't qualify as a single-pilot aircraft. However, the lighter Learjet 23 did. The ROCAF mightn't care if the aircraft met civil standards but, here, I'm assuming a reduction to Learjet 23 weights - by stripping out bizjet accommodations and frills.

[2] dy031101 mentioned possible "surplus APG-66V(3)" radars. Alas, those measure ~660 mm which would necessitate bulging the tip tank structure.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 28, 2021, 12:11:27 PM
Engine commonality between the F-5E and Learjets covers all the 20-series Learjets.  It would cost a bit more, but the Learjet wing could be modified to take up to six underwing pylons (I've seen concepts from their AD folks - and this was long ago).  One other thought, if you have radar in one enlarged tip tank nose, you could put EO capability in the other.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 29, 2021, 07:57:39 AM
Engine commonality between the F-5E and Learjets covers all the 20-series Learjets.  It would cost a bit more, but the Learjet wing could be modified to take up to six underwing pylons (I've seen concepts from their AD folks - and this was long ago).  One other thought, if you have radar in one enlarged tip tank nose, you could put EO capability in the other.

Thanks Evan. I was hoping that you'd weigh in  :smiley:

I was wondering how to balance the tip tanks and was thinking ICM. But an EO turret would widen the number of roles you could undertake.

Out of curiosity, what happens (aerodynamically) if you replaced those wingtip tanks with missile rails (à la the F-104). I'm thinking that there's now plenty of room in the fuselage for fuel tanks.

I'm seeing the ROCAF underwing armament as more of a "We could if we wanted to" deterrent. But Taiwan's situation may be unique. Lots of other, smaller air forces could benefit from those extra pylons  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 30, 2021, 02:06:09 AM
What about a gun pod on one wing tip - maybe a derivative of some thing like below:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/dsc3974d_zps320b4074.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/dscf0015g_zpseab0909b.jpg)

Might need to be prepared for asymmetric effects if only on one side though.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 30, 2021, 04:56:21 AM
Actually, replacing the tip tanks with missile rails would involve some plumbing changes, too, very much like those done for Longhorn wing.  In fact, Learjet 24-218 was the first flying testbed for that wing so I know the changes can be done.  personally, I'd rather see the weapons on wing hard points and the tip tanks left as they are (with appropriate mods to their front ends).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2021, 06:40:20 AM
Greg: I like those gun pods! Any idea what the weapons mounted are? I'm thinking, for 'Learjet interceptors', guns would be mainly for warning shots. So maybe, if aimed wide enough, asymmetric effects wouldn't be a major issue?

Evan: Thanks, it was the Longhorn I was thinking of. I like the look of the modified wingtip tanks. BUt, just to try something different, I had a go at LAU-128/A launch rails on the wing tips. Fuel could be made up with a new cabin fuel tank mounted behind the radar op's position. I haven't shown underwing racks on this version but they'd be handy for hanging ECM pods from (AN/ALQ-131?).

dy031101 had mentioned left-over AN/APG-66V(3) from the F-16V programme. Although this one isn't Taiwanese, I wanted to try a nose installation mod. My scaling was quite rough and I'm wondering if the radome might a little too big. Even if it is, this is going to be one long-nosed puppy!

The only other change was ditiching the hush kits. I had left 'em on the ROCAF Lear (Taiwan being so densely-populated). Still, leaving the hush kits off must be good for a few extra knots.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on April 30, 2021, 08:17:19 AM
If you are doing away with the tip tanks, perhaps underwing tanks, as flown on 24-218 for a while, located on the inboard hard point on each wing, would work.  Mind you, you would likely need to remanufacture the wings, replacing spar caps made from lots of bent-up sheet metal with the machined extrusions used on the original FFA fighter design.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 01, 2021, 02:18:36 AM
The pods shown above contain 30mm DEFA cannon.  One could also go with something lighter such as a 7.62mm one for 'warning' purposes:

(http://www.ordtech-industries.com/2products/Gunships/XG/050_pod2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2021, 03:22:39 AM
The pods shown above contain 30mm DEFA cannon.  One could also go with something lighter such as a 7.62mm one for 'warning' purposes:

Thanks. Yep, the 7.62 mm pods (loaded with plenty of tracer rounds) would do the trick  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 01, 2021, 01:58:47 PM
The pods shown above contain 30mm DEFA cannon.  One could also go with something lighter such as a 7.62mm one for 'warning' purposes:

Thanks. Yep, the 7.62 mm pods (loaded with plenty of tracer rounds) would do the trick  :smiley:

100% tracer, that should scare the pants off 'em! ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 02, 2021, 11:25:45 AM
No backstory here ... just look for an excuse to WHIF an F-4 update.

Major changes include new outer wing panels of extended span but reduced dihedral. On the wingtips are LAU-128 rails for Sidewinders (inner wing racks can take additional AIM-9s). Not shown here are AIM-120s launchers on the sides of the conformal belly tank (which is smaller than that of Boeing's Phantom 2000 proposal).

Other airframes changes are canard surfaces (similar to those on the YF-4E demonstrator). Intakes have been changed to reduce radar signature (and just 'cuz I like diverterless intakes). The vertical tail has a fin-top ECM pod and has been extended slightly by an antenna above.

Faired onto the upper nose is an IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) sensor (inspired by the CF-101). Nose radome remains the same ... but there would have been a range of radar upgrade options.

Powerplants are twin Rolls-Royce RB.188 Super Spey turbofans - slightly re-scaled RB.168s designed as 'drop-in' replacements for General Electric J79 turbojets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 04, 2021, 07:25:38 AM
Another robunos rip-off ... this time, based on the de Havilland Australia Sun Moth:

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9672.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9672.0)

The de Havilland Australia Sun Moth II name is all but forgotten today. A major improvement over the original, more cramped Sun Moth I, the prototype Sun Moth II was let down by its underpowered de Havilland Gipsy Six engine. [1] And that might have been the end of the story had the RAAF not experienced some overheating problems with the Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah in their Avro 643 Cadet biplane trainers.

In anticipation of new RAAF Avro Anson patrol aircraft, Canberra funded an improved version of the British engine. The result was the Commonwealth CAC-7 Cricket [2] 7-cylinder radial - with the same displacement as the British Cheetah but with enlarged cooling fins on the cylinder barrels. [3] The Cricket did all that was hoped for it but, before the first Anson entered RAAF service, a pre-production CAC-7 was used to re-engine the prototype DHA-2 Sun Moth II. The intended market, once again, was the Australian Aerial Medical Service. But the 'Flying Doctors' lost out to the RAAF.

In service, the DHA-2M became the de Havilland Australia Dingo - famed for its low-level air drops to jungle-fighting troops in New Zealand. The 375 hp CAC-7 Cricket provided enough power for the Dingo to hang over the Diggers' position on its Handley Page slats while dropping urgent supplies through its belly hatch. (Such mad aerial antics probably being responsible for the DHA-2M's 'Drongo' nickname.)

Illustrated is the prototype 'Panacea II after its conversion to DHA-2M standards.

____________________________________

[1] That original, inline layout being immortalized in the de Havilland Australia logo.

[2] The CAC Cricket was named for the buzzing Black field cricket (Teleogryllus commodus). 

[3] Minor changes to better-suit Australian manufacturing practices and a switch from Claudel-Hobson to US Stromberg NA-R7A carburettors were other modifications. The parallel CAC Cicada - a 420 hp, 1,072 cid (17.57 L) 9-cylinder radial - was not proceeded with (Commonwealth ultimately license-building the Pratt and Whitney Wasp instead).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on May 04, 2021, 11:42:22 PM
A very strong resemblance to the future DHC Beaver and Otter in that image.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on May 05, 2021, 05:30:32 AM
Another robunos rip-off ... this time, based on the de Havilland Australia Sun Moth:

[url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9672.0[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9672.0[/url])

The de Havilland Australia Sun Moth II name is all but forgotten today. A major improvement over the original, more cramped Sun Moth I, the prototype Sun Moth II was let down by its underpowered de Havilland Gipsy Six engine. [1] And that might have been the end of the story had the RAAF not experienced some overheating problems with the Armstrong Siddeley Cheetah in their Avro 643 Cadet biplane trainers.

In anticipation of new RAAF Avro Anson patrol aircraft, Canberra funded an improved version of the British engine. The result was the Commonwealth CAC-7 Cricket [2] 7-cylinder radial - with the same displacement as the British Cheetah but with enlarged cooling fins on the cylinder barrels. [3] The Cricket did all that was hoped for it but, before the first Anson entered RAAF service, a pre-production CAC-7 was used to re-engine the prototype DHA-2 Sun Moth II. The intended market, once again, was the Australian Aerial Medical Service. But the 'Flying Doctors' lost out to the RAAF.

In service, the DHA-2M became the de Havilland Australia Dingo - famed for its low-level air drops to jungle-fighting troops in New Zealand. The 375 hp CAC-7 Cricket provided enough power for the Dingo to hang over the Diggers' position on its Handley Page slats while dropping urgent supplies through its belly hatch. (Such mad aerial antics probably being responsible for the DHA-2M's 'Drongo' nickname.)

Illustrated is the prototype 'Panacea II after its conversion to DHA-2M standards.

____________________________________

[1] That original, inline layout being immortalized in the de Havilland Australia logo.

[2] The CAC Cricket was named for the buzzing Black field cricket (Teleogryllus commodus). 

[3] Minor changes to better-suit Australian manufacturing practices and a switch from Claudel-Hobson to US Stromberg NA-R7A carburettors were other modifications. The parallel CAC Cicada - a 420 hp, 1,072 cid (17.57 L) 9-cylinder radial - was not proceeded with (Commonwealth ultimately license-building the Pratt and Whitney Wasp instead).



I'm going to have to start charging licence fees !       ;D


Verr' verr' nice . . . if I had the bits, I'd build one ! (would I be right in thinking the new engine and cowling came from my Helldiver ?).
It's interesting, I've got a few projects in the works, where I will be building several models, to illustrate a design sequence, and here you are, doing the same with your images . . .


cheers,
Robin.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 05, 2021, 05:45:05 AM
Cheers Jeff. I was going for an ur-Beaver vibe (although the canopy is actually Norseman-based).

Robin: Cheques are in the mail  ;)  Like the canopy, the cowling and prop were based on those of the Norseman ... but scaled down to Cheetah size (one of many cheats available to us pixel pushers).

Looking forward to your design sequence builds  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on May 05, 2021, 09:58:53 PM
I would prefer Bitcoin . . .   ;D ;D
Looking closer at the image, I can the small differences, reminds me of a Buffalo cowling.   :smiley:
Thinking about it, I've already posted the first part of one of my sequences, with the OWB Sopwith Pup and Hound. I have the Camel, Snipe and Salamander still to do.


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 06, 2021, 08:02:06 AM
... the small differences, reminds me of a Buffalo cowling...

It does look like a Buffalo! Attached is the real deal (AFAIK, only the USAAF UC-64s had the 3-bladed props).

Thinking about it, I've already posted the first part of one of my sequences, with the OWB Sopwith Pup and Hound. I have the Camel, Snipe and Salamander still to do.

Cool! I love the Salamander ... even if the RFC/RAF brass didn't share my enthusiasm for armoured trench strafers  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 08, 2021, 11:59:33 AM
No backstory here ... just playin' with the Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 (which I always thought needed a bit of slimming down). I'm calling this the M.S.460 C1. [1] Changes are:

- Engine moved forward (anticipating a new, 2-stage supercharger)
- Smoother cowling (improved aerodynamics), relocated supercharger intakes
- Upper nose contours raised (to clear potentially larger ammunition drum)
- Radiator moved aft and fuselage lengthened to compensate for longer nose
- Semi-monocoque wooden  rear fuselage (aft of glazing) to conserve steel
- Semi-retractable tail wheel incorporated into extended rear fuselage
- Vertical tail moved aft (allowing slight increase in elevator size)

The prototype (bottom) lacks exhaust stubs and still has the M.S.406's 20 mm HS 404 moteur-canon. The protduction M.S.460 C1 (top) has thrust-producing exhausts and the new Hispano-Suiza 23 mm HS 407 gun.
__________________________________

[1] Yeah, I know that there was a real M.S.460 project. It was a 1940 (or 1939?) single-seat fighter but who knows what it looked like?

EDIT: Forgot to mention that this began life as a Thierry Dekker profile of an M.S.406  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: PantherG on May 08, 2021, 01:44:42 PM
Morane 460 looks very good.....  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 09, 2021, 02:10:56 AM
[1] Yeah, I know that there was a real M.S.460 project. It was a 1940 (or 1939?) single-seat fighter but who knows what it looked like?

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Escanear0005.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/Escanear0004.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 09, 2021, 07:33:17 AM
Cool! Thanks Greg  :smiley:

Looks a bit like a CAO.200 with Dewoitine influences. Nice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 14, 2021, 09:51:42 AM
When the Armée de l'Air embarked upon a Dewoitine D.500 upgrade programme in 1937, Switzerland took the opportunity to purchase 32 engines from those French fighters. These Hispano-Suiza 12Xbrs engines had the same displacement as the HS 12Mc V-12s which powered the Flugwaffe's frontline fighter - the Dewoitine D 27. However, the newer engines weighed 75 kg less while producing 190 hp more at altitude - a valuable gain when operating over mountainous terrain. Despite the obvious advantages, the proposed D.27V (Verbessert programme stalled for budgetary reasons.

The arrival of the Flugwaffe's first Messerschmitt Bf 109D fighters in 1938 reinforced just how obsolete the 1930-vintage Dewoitines were. Since the Flugwaffe held stocks of HS 12Xjrs engines, the D.27 upgrade option was revisited in the Summer of 1938. However, with war clouds gathering, the project was revised with a more advanced form. This project was assigned to the Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte - federal workshops at Thun. The EKW was already working on an advanced two-seat attack aircraft to replace the C.36 biplanes. The low-wing monoplane form of this embyonic EKW C.3800 design would inform the Dewoitine rebuild programme. [1]

The D.27's parasol wing - with its forest of drag-inducing support struts - was first to go. That wing arrangement had provided pilots with good visibility but would make rearming under-wing bomb racks very difficult. It was decided to rebuild the Dewoitines with an entirely new wing and main undercarriage. Both new features were inspired by the emerging design for the EKW's two-seat C.3800 attack plane. [2] However, for speed of construction, the Dewoitine's new wings would be plywood-covered wood structures. As with the planned C.3800, the new main undercarriage members would be fixed and covered in streamlined spats. This proposal was evaluation by the Flugwaffe and accepted in late October 1938.

The 'new' ground attack aircraft were designated EKW BA.27X - for Bodenangriff (Ground Attack) and the HS 12X powerplant. Construction of the wooden wings was sub-contracted to the Farner-Werke AG in Grenchen. Fuselage modifications and final assembly took place at EKW's Thun plant. Thirty of the most suitable D.27 airframes were selected for modification to BA.27X standards (leaving four HS 12X engines in reserve). [2] The prototype conversion is illustrated below.

Bottom Initial conversion work on Dewoitine D.27 nr 286. As originally completed, the BA.27X prototype retained the D.27's original head rest and tail skid. The revised windscreen was found to be inadequate at the higher speeds achieved by the BA.27X and the rounded wingtips contributed to aileron flutter.

Top The revised BA.27X prototype showing 'clipped' wingtips, extra bracing struts on the horizontal tails, plus a bigger windscreen with new side panels and an enlarged head-rest fairing. This bought the prototype up to 'production' conversion standards. Of the thirty conversions, twenty were twin-gun types with underwing bomb racks fitted. The remaining ten aircraft featured another pair of 7.5 mm Darne guns in the wings to match to two synchronized weapons.

__________________________________

[1] A review of the 53 surviving D.27s resulted in the selection of 34 conversion candidate airframes. Of the 19 remaining airframes, six were to be scrapped, and a dozen were to be converted to approximate D.26 trainer standards. one D.27 was set aside to be preserved as a non-flying museum exhibit.

[2] Numbers were dictated by available engines. Although the KTA (Kriegstechnischen Abteilung or Military Technology Department) recommended holding ten engines in reserve as spares, full conversion of 30 x D.27 airframes was approved by the Chef der Flugwaffe. Four D.27 airframes were held in reserve although with stocks of spares created by scrapping worn-out D.27s.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 17, 2021, 09:19:10 AM
A bit of a change from sideviews. This image is modified from the Dewoitine D.510 painting by Carlos Alonzo - and used as box art on the KP 1/72nd kit. In that painting, the Dewoitine has just shot up a Bf 109E (which must've been on half throttle!).

Did a D.510 pilot ever score a kill over a Luftwaffe Bf 109E? Dunno. By the time of the German invasion, most surviving D.510s had been transferred to the Centre d'Instruction de la Chasse (CIC) at Chartres, so ...  Anyway, partly for composition, I removed the mystery Messerschmitt.

The D.510 airframe has been tweaked into what I'm calling a D.51.10 (following the Potez 63.10 model). The fuselage has an additional bay added to accommodate deeper chord wings. Those wings similar to those of the D.520 - house a new retractable main undercarriage (as well as four 7.5 mm MAC 1934 machine guns). The pilot is better-protected from the slipstream by a new sliding canopy which, in turn, dictated an enlarged rear deck fairing.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 20, 2021, 03:41:49 AM
Wouldn't an airliner derivative look more like the original He111C or G?

CASA 2.111G - the Pedro Transporte Rapido

I ran with this. To simplify retouch, I stuck with a military variant...  The idea here is that the Ejército del Aire had a requirement for a fast transport - not so much for VIPs as for rapid movement of key EdA personnel.

The basis for this CASA 2.111G (EdA T.8)transport was the 2.111D (B.R2I) recce variant. [1] However, the small 'production' run were actually rebuilt 2.111C (B.2H) models  fitted with refurbished forward fuselages from retired EdA Heinkel He 111Bs and He 111E bombers. These 'new' nose sections were fitted with dual-controls and the airframes re-engined with Merlin 500s.

The CASA 2.111G was seen as a companion to the more spartan 2.111E (T.8A) troop transport. The 'nariz larga' modification had sprung from the abortive 2.111RE radar trainer (EdA E.11). The one-off CASA 2.111 BPR (Banco de Pruebas de Radar) testbed proved too slow and unwieldy. As a result, all three 2.111RE conversions begun were completed as 'Pedro Transporte Rapidos'. [2] Other than their long noses, the only vestige of the 2.111Gs' origins was the black-painted composite nose cones.

____________________________________

[1] There was a RW 2.111G - it was a dual-control trainer while the nearly identical 2.111H was a dual-control transport. These RW 'Gs and 'Hs shared the EdA designation T.8B. Here, I am imagining the AltHist T.8Bs to also share the CASA designation 2.111H.

[2] The sole CASA 2.111 BPR was later stripped of its antennae and radar operator stations. Thereafter, the 2.111 BPR acted as a hack transport for the Grupo de Experimentación en Vuelo at Torrejón.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 22, 2021, 02:13:44 AM
Love your work. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 22, 2021, 03:53:18 AM
Any chance of a turboprop variant of the above - maybe using the BT-67 as inspiration?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 25, 2021, 10:36:46 AM
Cheers Greg  :smiley:

Any chance of a turboprop variant of the above - maybe using the BT-67 as inspiration?

Ah yes, the CASA 3.111 turboprop... Testbeds don't get enough attention. The CASA 3.111 conversion would be better-remembered had the Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA proceeded with their CASA 362TH (Turbo-Hélice) airliner project.

Of course, once Franco's Spain could legally import second-hand Dakotas, no-one was interested in a warmed-over CASA 352L ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 26, 2021, 02:01:05 AM
Turbomeca Astazou?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 26, 2021, 03:30:04 AM
Turbomeca Astazou?
Sure looks like it, or a similar Turbomeca engine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 27, 2021, 01:50:29 AM
I'm tempted to do a twin turbo prop one with either PT6As or RR Darts.

I also have a plan for a Zwilling one meted with an airliner version so as to create a Zwilling HE111 airliner.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 28, 2021, 06:45:19 AM
I'm tempted to do a twin turbo prop one with either PT6As or RR Darts.

I also have a plan for a Zwilling one meted with an airliner version so as to create a Zwilling HE111 airliner.

Yup, three Astazous. My first thought was the Heinkel equivalent of a Dart Dakota. But, somehow, your mention of the Basler BT-67 got me thinking of the older Conroy Tri-Turbo-Three conversions.

Love the idea of a Zwilling airliner  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 28, 2021, 06:49:09 AM
Over on Secret Projects, there was mention of an Israeli proposal for an inflight refuelling conversion of the Gulfstream G550. The only image available is of poor quality but showed the key details. So, I decided to try a sideview.

As a basis, I found a nice photo of a pre-delivery G550 heading for the IDF (I've long had a thing for primered airframes, no idea why.) The IAI mods were to be similar to the in-service IDF Gulfstreams - the SIGINT Nachshon Shavit, Nachshon Eitam Conformal AEW, and now the combo Nachshon Oron.

So, no huge changes ... just some cabin window reductions, enlarged Nachshon tail fairing, ... oh, yeah ... and a whomping great flying boom dangling  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 15, 2021, 08:35:55 AM
NT-40E Radar Aircraft Testbed (callsign RAT 98), a flying signature measurement aircraft, has been modified from a Boeing 737-73W(WL) airliner. Despite its 'lower' designation number, the NT-40E is actually a direct replacement for the B737-200-based NT-43A RTA (callsign RAT 55). The NT-40E has commonality with USAF C-40B combatant commanders carrier and C-40C VIP transports. [1]

______________________________________________

[1] The military B737-700 fleet consists of the US Navy's C-40A Clipper, USAF C-40B and C-40C, and now the NT-43E. The nature of any 'C-40D' variant has not been revealed. All T-43A and other B737-200-based military variants have now been retired.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 25, 2021, 07:54:53 AM
This pair didn't quite fit the timeline of the 1920s/1930s GB or Between the Wars Group Build.
-- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=98.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=98.0)

Top A Hawker Harbinger Mk.Ia(T) advanced trainer assigned to 5 OTU at Aston Down in the Cotswolds. This aircraft was lost on a training mission on 23 July 1940. Through fuel starvation (or contamination?), the Harbinger was put down into a field just southwest of Stroud. Unfortunately, an unseen drainage ditch tore the main undercarriage from the aircraft. The wreck was recovered but was written off as unrepairable after inspection at Aston Down.

During the June 1940 invasion scare, bomb racks were built for the Harbinger trainers by Gloster Aircraft. Trucked 20 miles south by road, Gloster technicians installed these racks at Aston Down. By the end of 1940, the Harbinger trainers had been replaced at OTUs by single-seat Hurricanes. The older aircraft, having become maintenance intensive and troublesome, were not missed.

Bottom A Hawker Harrier Mk.II of 1 (Fighter) Squadron, South African Air Force, Kenya, August 1940. Flown by Lt. B. Ronald Dimmock, this fighter was based at Wajir airfield, only 60 flying miles from the Italian Somaliland boundary. Refurbished by Glosters before delivery to South Africa, this Harrier has been repainted in sand-and-stone camouflage with fresh markings. Fuselage roundels would not be modified into Type A1s until very late in 1940.

The victory markings on Harrier '404' are a bit of a mystery. The black fasces probably represents the Caproni Ca.133 bomber (8ª Squadriglia, 25° Gruppo) claimed on 03 August 1940 (a 'kill' shared with Lieutenants Blake and Rushmere). The white fasces may indicate a 'probable'. [1] The SAAF's 1 (Fighter) Squadron had been deployed to Mombasa by ship in late May 1940.

The SAAF received six refurbished Harriers in September 1939 (along with four early-production Hawker Hurricanes). This was intended to bolster and modernize the South Africa force while allowing the SAAF's surviving half-dozen Hawker Fury biplanes to assume a fighter-bomber role. [2] This restructuring paid dividends in East Africa where the Harrier could, at will, break off combat with Italian C.R.32 biplane fighters.

___________________________________________

[1] Possible the Fiat C.R.32 fighter claimed as a 'probable' and shared with squadron CO, Major Noël Niblock-Stuart.

[2] The refurbished Harriers were all fitted with 640 hp Kestrel VI powerplants to match the engines of the SAAF's Fury fleet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on June 26, 2021, 08:48:38 PM
Great!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 27, 2021, 07:26:13 AM
Cheers Daniel  :smiley:  I linked to the Group Build above but probably should have also made a direct link to my Halfway House Hawkers thread: http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9845.0 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9845.0)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on June 29, 2021, 06:06:19 AM
Cheers Daniel  :smiley:  I linked to the Group Build above but probably should have also made a direct link to my Halfway House Hawkers thread: [url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9845.0[/url] ([url]http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9845.0[/url])


 :smiley: ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 09, 2021, 01:26:34 AM
Quote
B737-200

Gaah, a pet peeve, Boeing does not preface their model numbers with the letter 'B'. 

That's attached by ICAO for ATC purposes only and it doesn't used the full manufacturer
designation e.g. 737-200 = B732.

 :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 09, 2021, 03:20:02 AM
Gaah, a pet peeve, Boeing does not preface their model numbers with the letter 'B'...

I keep forgetting that. Alas, this is a misuse which dates back to CP Air days! So apologies in advance for 'usage hysteresis'  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 11, 2021, 07:19:41 AM
Carlos' exploration of the Stridsvagn 74 has inspired me. I too like the imposing look of the Strv 74 turret. [1] I'm calling my version the Stridsvagn 75 - in FMV nomenclature, the 5th battle tank type armed with a 7,5 cm gun.

For my post-1984 'recycling project', I've moved the Strv 74 turret onto a hull based on the suspension and road wheels of the Strv 103 and Bandkanon 1. This hull was designed for an unrealized MICV - the Infanteri stridsvagn 401 - intended to have some degree of mechanical commonality and mobility with the Strv 103 and Bkan 1. This Isv 401 project was abandoned (partially due to expense, partly to the exceptional characteristics of the PbV 302 APC). The upper hull was then redesigned to produce the Stridsvagn 75 as well as a range of support vehicles (Bgbv 75 ARV and Ingbv 75 AEV).

The Strv 75 is arranged like a Merkava - with the engine to the front and the turret set back on the hull. The complex combo-engine arrangement of the Strv 103 and Bkan 1 has been replaced by a front-mounted 40 hp Volvo-Penta A8DF diesel engine [2] mated to a Perkins X-300-5S automatic transmission. [3] The Strv 75 served for less than a decade in armoured divisions before being passed on to the Hemvärnet (Home Guard). In the early '90s, these tanks were re-fitted with more modern turrets from the Ikv 91 (which, in turn, were being rebuilt as Ikv 104s).

_______________________________________________________

[1] Looks are one thing, performance is another. The 7,5 cm Kanon Strv 74s were ex-Boforskanoner 7,5 cm m/36-37 flak guns. The Strv 74 turret had been designed specifically for these guns but performance did not compare well with the modern 105 (NATO 105 mm L7, Swedish 10,5 cm kan strv 101/'102/'103). Strv 74 muzzle velocity was only 85% that of the 10,5 cm; shell weight was only 64%.

[2] The Volvo A8DF was a heavily-redesigned diesel version of the m/42's A8B petrol V-8 (itself a cut-down, inverted DB 605 V-12 derivative). To alleviate some of the A8B's operating problems. A number of Daimler MB 500-series features were introduced - such as 4-valves per cylinder (returning to the original DB 605 arrangement), Bosch fuel injection pumps, and cooling fins along the crankcase. The A8DF designation indicates the change to Diesel (from Bensin) and Förbättrad (or Improved).

[3] This Perkins-built Allison X-300 derivative replaced the Strv 75 prototype's 9-speed ZF manual transmission.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 11, 2021, 05:11:50 PM
If I was a tank gunner, I'd be spoiled for choices to aim at! Oh, that luvverly shot trap under the turret! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 12, 2021, 07:22:29 AM
If I was a tank gunner, I'd be spoiled for choices to aim at! Oh, that luvverly shot trap under the turret! :-*

Indeed. Like the RW Strv 74 before it, my WHIF Strv 75 would be easy meat for tank gunners. Especially that 'vintage' 1942 hull armour! No need to sweat the shot traps when you have your choice of hull and turret spots to punch straight through  :o

I don't actually know what the Pansartrupperna had in mind for it for its Strv 74s. My guess is that they were intended to sort out the PT-76s and APCs while the Strv 10x types and Robot gunners dealt with the heavier-armoured Soviet tanks.

Anyhoo, Carlos was also speculating about what could be done with Strv 74 hulls. I'm thinking that all but a few were past due for the knackers by 1984. In my imaginings, the handful of remaining viable hulls/running gears become anti-aircraft vehicles. So, here is my take on that: the Luftvärnskanonvagn 43 (Lvkv 43).

Since Bofors had abandoned its VEAK 4062 AA vehicle back in 1965, the Luftvärnskanonvagn 43 needs an available turret. One of the studied Strv 74 rebuild possibilities had been mounting the AMX-13's oscillating gun turret onto the Strv m/42 hull. That led me to the AMX-13 DCA 40 turret with its single 4,0 cm Bofors gun. That turret could be license built in Sweden (as the Luftuftförsvarstorn 43 or Air Defence Turret Lvkv 43).

The Lvkv 43 and its turret would have been all a bit on the small and primitive side (although perhaps more realistic from an ammunition stowage POV than twin 40s?). I'm seeing this Lvkv 43 operating in concert with RBS 70 carriers - possibly beginning with RBS 70 Lavettes on APCs (whif Pbv 301 'LuVäReMo'), [1] later eclipsed by Bofors ASRAD-R turrets on suitably modified Pbv 302s

__________________________________

[1] 'LuVäReMo' for Luftvärns Renovation Modification. (I'm not sure why FMV uses the English 'Renovation Modification' when the Swedish Renoveringsmodifiering would provide the same ReMo acronym?)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 12, 2021, 08:53:48 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2021, 04:44:05 AM
I changed my mind about the RBS 70 Lavettes for the Pbv 301 'LuVäReMo' and went straight to the ASRAD-R turret (shown here retracted) on the Pbv 301 hull.

This was prompted by some honcho from the Luftvärnsregementet quoted back in the day as saying that Reservists could easily fire the RBS 70 but they would never hit anything. In effect, 'best leave operating the Robots to the grown-ups' [insert tongue raspberry emoji here].

So here is a Luftvärnsrobotvagn 701 (aka Pbv 301 LuVäReMo) attached to the Luftvärnets stridsskola (LvSS, or Air Defence Combat School), Halmstad, in late 1986.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2021, 04:45:57 AM
A quick-n-dirty Matilda II/T-34-85 mashup. Just needed to find that extra 11 inches of turret ring diameter  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 13, 2021, 07:05:30 AM
Back to Sweden ...

Another quick retouch to represent the unbuilt Infanteri stridsvagn 401 MICV/IFV. Obvious differences from the Stridsvagn 75 are the raised dismount section at the rear and the 'recycled' Pbv 301 torn armed with a 2 cm Bofors akan m/45B. The commander's hatch is also taken from the Pansarbandvagn 301. Had the Isv 401 been built, that commander's hatch would likely have been raised to improve situational awareness.

This Isv 401 is shown with manoeuvre markings ('A14' temporarily applied with tape). Had the Infanteri stridsvagn 401 been produced, it would have been eclipsed by the Stridsfordon 90 in less than a decade (the Strf 90 being both mor practical and heavier-armed). Too heavy for the Hemvärnet, the Isv 401 hulls would have been repurposed as engineering support vehicles.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 13, 2021, 08:28:55 AM
Hey, I love your work on Swedish armour. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 14, 2021, 05:27:49 AM
Hey, I love your work on Swedish armour. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Praise indeed! Thanks Carlos ... your work was the inspiration  :smiley: :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Story on July 15, 2021, 12:23:42 AM
A quick-n-dirty Matilda II/T-34-85 mashup. Just needed to find that extra 11 inches of turret ring diameter  ;)

That looks legitimate
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on July 24, 2021, 08:36:52 AM
A quick-n-dirty Matilda II/T-34-85 mashup. Just needed to find that extra 11 inches of turret ring diameter  ;)
Looks so right! :-* :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 04, 2021, 03:14:54 AM
A quick-n-dirty Matilda II/T-34-85 mashup. Just needed to find that extra 11 inches of turret ring diameter  ;)

Or a reduced diameter turret basket with the turret itself running on a larger
diameter turret race mounted on the top of the hull.
 ;)

Yay, bigger gun, bigger turret, still cramped.  :smiley:
 :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 04, 2021, 03:43:55 AM
Good point on the reduced diameter turret basket/larger race combo. After all, it isn't like these ' Super Matildas' would be mounting, original, Russian-built turrets.

Yay, bigger gun, bigger turret, still cramped.  :smiley:
 :icon_fsm:

Yeah, there's the rub. Which brings up another, rather obvious alternative ... which I'm hoping a future backstory will allow feigned originality  ;)

BTW: A belated, diasporic Happy BC Day, Jon  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 04, 2021, 11:45:15 AM
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=144.msg187148#msg187148 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=144.msg187148#msg187148)

Logan's Ratel 85 got me wondering about a turreted 8x8 variant. That might sound redundant in light of the 8x8 Rooikat but the latter wouldn't really be in wide SADF service for another decade.

So, spinning off from Logan's concept, here is a revised 8x8 Ratel weapon carrier derivative. No longer an IFV, this 8x8 has its engine compartment moved to just behind the driver's compartment. (I'm not sure what that engine would be ... but something bigger than the RW Ratel's 282 hp Büssing diesel.) The new engine pair - and a second pair of steering wheels - displace the side doors (but the rear door can be enlarged for reloading, etc.).

The two variants shown here are a tank destroyer and an SP gun. The former is the Ratel 100, mounting a captured T-55 turret armed with a Soviet 100 mm D-10T or D-10T2S gun. The latter is the Ratel 122, armed with a captured 122 mm D-74 field gun. The point, as in Logan's Ratel 85 scenario, is to be able to make use of ammunition stocks captured in the field rather than being dependent upon long supply lines.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 05, 2021, 08:46:47 AM
Glad I could inspire a few of your works, apophenia! I know plenty have gone in the other direction!

You could also look at something like the 8x8 Ratel Logistics variant.

(http://www.military-today.com/apc/ratel_logistics_l2.jpg)

I always thought that looked pretty sharp, too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 05, 2021, 10:37:50 AM
I do like that Ratel LOG  :smiley:

Compared with my approach, that was also probably a much simpler route, mechanically, for getting to an 8x8 Ratel!

I was trying to get the turrets over the rear axles (although my Ratel 122 probably needs stabilizing jacks too). Since the RW Ratel 90 could manage a forward placed turret, maybe a mid-placed T-55 turret would be okay (except maybe on soft ground?).

And speaking of the Ratel 90 ... here a quickie of a shortie  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 05, 2021, 11:57:05 AM
That short Ratel 90 looks a lot like a VAB Mk 3.

(https://defence-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13413554_838146946319113_1762233106462822573_n.jpg)

I went with the mid-mounted turret on the Ratel 6x6 so I could grab a standard vehicle off the line and it shouldn’t need any modifications to the lower hull or powertrain to accommodate the T-34 turret.

I thought about an 8x8 with a T-54/55 turret, but then I figured I would probably just make it look like the Ratel-based Concept 1 pre-Rooikat developmental prototype, but with the turrets swapped (which, for the record, I still think would be viable).

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2iWVCZWEAA2iKI.jpg)

I like the Concept 2 and 3 vehicles a little more aesthetically because of their lower silhouette and I think the Rooikat itself is downright sexy, but a Ratel-based vehicle is the only sensible option for the early-80s SADF, logistically speaking. And I don’t think the Concept 1 looks bad, certainly still looks modern today, over 40 years later.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 06, 2021, 06:38:21 AM
I went with the mid-mounted turret on the Ratel 6x6 so I could grab a standard vehicle off the line and it shouldn’t need any modifications to the lower hull or powertrain to accommodate the T-34 turret...

Very wise. I was well aware of the irony of rearranging drive components on a vehicle explicitly intended to use COTS drivetrain parts! Fortunately, development budgets can be infinitely expandable in whif-world  ;D

Agreed too on the merits of the Rooikat. Doubtless, RW SADF experience with the Ratel and 'Noddy Car' during Operations Savannah and Reindeer drove the requirement leading to Rooikat.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 08, 2021, 10:21:15 AM
I decided that I can't justify squeezing this into the 1920s/1930s GB or Between the Wars GB thread. It is part of the  PZL fighter sequence from that GB but there's too much September 1939 content. So ...
_________________________________

The PZL.51 was considered the definitive production variant of the PZL.41 Krogulec II (Sparrowhawk II). The key difference between the PZL.41 and PZL.51a was the latter's totally new main landing gear arrangement. Referred to as the 'typ Curtiss', this undercarriage was a licensed copy of the gear on the Curtiss Hawk 75A fighter. [1] This landing gear retracted aft but also turned 90° to lie flat with the wheels housed within the wings. Fairings were still required for the legs themselves and retraction gear but the drag-inducing 'kajaki' ('canoes') of the PZL.41 could be dispensed with.

Initially, the Polish air force had been reluctant to accept another change on PZL's WP-1 production line. Accordingly, an early-model PZL.31 Krogulec airframe had been rebuilt with the 'typ Curtiss' gear as a private venture. Once superior performance was demonstrated, the new type was ordered as the P.51a. To distinguish this further revised fighter from the PZL.41 Krogulec II, the P.51 received the name Kosmacz (Rough-Legged Hawk). Few other changes were introduced to simply the production line change over. A minor but distinctive change was the introduction of aft cockpit glazing in an attempt to improve rearward vision.

The P.51a retained the 4-gun armament of the PZL.41b - with one 7.9 mm wz.33 machine gun in either wing and on both sides of the fuselage. With the 20 mm Oerlikon FFS cannon previously eliminated for reasons of cost, the P.51b was to be armed with six wz.33 guns - with two mounted in each wing. The P.51B designation may seem to be a duplicate of the unbuilt P.51b, but it wasn't. Instead, the P.51B (for 'typ Bristolski') was an experimental machine converted to compare modern British cowling designs to their Polish opposites.

Bottom The PZL.51B Kosmacz experimental aircraft which trialed the 'typ Bristolski' cowling. On the first of September 1939, this aircraft (serial 14.168) was impressed to defend the Warsaw-Okęcie plant and surrounded areas. Like many frontline Polish fighters, finish is wzór kamuflaźu 38 (Camouflage Pattern 1938).

Wzór kamuflaźu 38 consisted of a German-influenced three-colour splinter pattern - made up of a relatively uniform scheme - for fighters - of khaki ciemny (Dark Khaki), zielona trawa (Grass Green), and beźowy (Beige) over jasny niebieski (Light Blue). [2]

The PZL.51B is depicted as it might have appeared on 02 September. Note that 14.168 did not have wireless equipment fitted. It is possible that wing guns were not fitted while on trials either. Also note that ground crews have overpainted the fuselage side PZL logo during the night of 01/02 September. While flying this aircraft, PZL test pilot Stanisław Riess claimed one Luftwaffe Do 17E and two He 111Ps damaged.

PZL.61 Kania - the Ultimate PZL Fighter of World War Two

In late August 1939, the revised PZL.61 fighter began reaching Polish squadrons. The development process had been a long one. Although closely related to the P.51 Kosmacz, the PZL.61 introduced two key changes. The first was a twin-row radial engine. The second was a lengthened fuselage to cope with that longer, heavier engine. In the initial plans, the P.61a was to be powered by the new PZL Smok (Dragon) twin-row radial. [3] Displacing 38.67 litres, the Smok was to generated 1,100 hp for take-off. This engine was, in effect, a Gnome-Rhône 14K crankcase revised to accept Bristol Mercury cylinders. Unfortunately, Smok prototypes suffered from severe overheating on the test bench and their was no sign of a quick cure.

The proposed cannon-armed PZL.61b was skipped over in favour of two variants powered by imported engines. The PZL.61c was a PZL.61a airframe fitted with a 930 hp Romanian-built IAR 14K powerplant. [4] This was a comparatively easy fit since the IAR K14-I C32 engine was being built for the IAR-built PZL P.24E fighter. Records are now lost but it appears that between 12 and 16 PZL.61c fighters were completed and delivered before the outbreak of war. Most PZL.61cs went to the fighter squadrons at Lwów but a few went straight from the Okęcie to local squadrons for the defence of Warsaw.

The name Kania was given to the PZL.61 series to distinguish this new fighter from the less-powerful PZL.51 Kosmacz. [5]

Top A six-gunned PZL.61c Kania (14.187) [6] in service with the 162. Eskadra Myśliwska for the defence of Lwów. These aircraft replaced PZL P.7a and interim P.31 fighters. Like his squadron makes, Podporucznik (2nd Lt) Czesław Główczyński had only days to adjust to the PZL.61c before being committed to combat. Having scored four aerial victories, ppor. Główczyński flew his aircraft across the Romanian border on 17 September 1939. With other 162.EM survivors, Główczyński made his way into exile - first in France, then in Britain.

_____________________________

[1] In fact, the patent for this 'typ Curtiss' undercarriage actually belonged to the Boeing Airplane Company.

[2] Wzór kamuflaźu 38 varied slightly depending on the intended role of the aircraft it was applied to. Light bombers and ground-attack aircraft, for example, generally received pl/owy brąz (Tawny Brown - a darker, reddish tone) rather than the tan/beige beźowy. In cases of last-moment overpainting, the old khaki średni (Medium Khaki) was left exposed rather than applying the new khaki ciemny. Such overpaints often left fuselage undersides in original colours as well - fresh applications of the greyish-blue jasny niebieski being a depot level job.

[3] The Smok appellation match other PZL engines in development. In size, the Smok was to fit between PZL's Waran (Goanna) and the Legwan (Iguana) engines.

[4] The IAR K14-I C32P (for Polonia) differed from Romania engines solely in having gun synchronization gear fitted. The unbuilt PZL.61d was to be fitted with a higher-powered Gnome-Rhône 14N radial but France was unable or unwilling to supply these engines.

[5] The name Kania had been reserved for Jakimiuk's earlier PZL.56 concept. This was basically a Hispano-Suiza 12Y-powered derivative of the abandoned PZL.50. However, difficulties in securing supplies of HS 12Y engines ended the PZL.56 programme.

[6] Note that the Polish air force assigned PZL.61 Kanias serials in the same sequence as the P.51 Kosmaczs.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on August 10, 2021, 12:41:46 AM
Really digging your Swede ideas. Hmm.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 10, 2021, 02:24:23 AM
Really digging your Swede ideas. Hmm.

Thanks Graeme  :smiley:  I like those recycling/renewal ideas with brand-new replacements hot-on-the-heels.

I'm not really sure if that approach would represent good economy in the RW. Still, folks like the Swedes and Israelis come up with some seriously cool adaptions  :D

Speaking of Swedes, have you been following Ramba's Strv 103C recce vehicle adaptation?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 10, 2021, 09:24:18 PM
Speaking of Swedes, have you been following Ramba's Strv 103C recce vehicle adaptation?

I have! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 16, 2021, 09:54:17 AM
One for the rivet-counters ...

Nuffield Mechanizations Ltd A13 Mark III (Cruiser, Reconnaissance, Mk.I)

The 'A13R' Cavalier was a fast reconnaissance tank based upon the failed Nuffield A13 Mark I (Cruiser Mk.III) prototype (A13E1). Nuffields had intended to power the A13 series with license-built Liberty L-12 aero engines. However, the reliability issues with this US engine and the excessive weight of the A13 prototype put paid to that plan. Baron Nuffield was forced to send his Birmingham design team back to the drawing board.

With component production already underway, an engine change promised both weight reduction and superior maintenance characteristics. The proposed engine was the result of work already underway between Rolls-Royce and Nuffields. [1] Greatest importance had been assigned to development of the Rolls-Royce Rail V-12 - an unsupercharged Kestrel adapted for land-use. But priority was quickly shifted from the V-12 to a V-8 derivative - the Rolls-Royce Rhea. [2]

Image Recce Cruiser - a Nuffield 'A13R' Cavalier of the 1st armoured Division, British Expeditionary Force, France, May 1940. This vehicle was sabotaged and abandoned outside of Dunkirk on 03 June 1940.

(To be continued ...)

___________________________

[1] Relations with Rolls-Royce warmed after William Morris (later Viscount Nuffield) abandoned his plans for aero engine production. In a co-development agreement, overall design control remained with Rolls-Royce while production of 'land-use' engines would be performed by Nuffields.

[2] The V-12 Rail had been intended for Nuffield's A16E1 Heavy Cruiser project. A teritiary prioity was the Roadrunner series of 4- and -6-cylinder engines for light armoured vehicles.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2021, 05:48:13 AM
Keeping Up With the Joneses - the 'Nuffield Carrier'

The Carrier, Cruiser was designed alongside the A13 Cruiser Mk.III tank. The object was to produce a support vehicle which could keep pace with the quicker A13 tanks. When the Cruiser Mk.III was dropped in favour of the producing the 'A13R' Cavalier fast reconnaissance tank (see previous post), the Carrier, Cruiser lost its priority. But the 'Nuffield Carrier' was seen as having potential utility of its own. Once 'A13R' production was underway, design work recommenced on the Carrier, Cruiser.

In keeping with the original concept, the Carrier, Cruiser used the roadwheels and suspension of Nuffields' Cruiser tank. The drivetrain differed in having front drive sprockets and a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine was employed. The latter was a 96 hp Morris 6-cylinder taken from the Morris Commercial C9 lorry. [1] The narrow Morris 6-cylinder fit alongside the driver, freeing the rear compartment of all drivetrain components. But, this powerplant choice would also effect the future of the Carrier, Cruiser. The Morris produced only 10 hp more than the Universal Carrier's Ford V-8 motor. To maintain speed, Nuffields had to sacrifice armour protection.

As was common at the time, no overhead armour was used. In other locations, armour thickness varied from 6-to-14 mm (comparable with the Universal Carrier's 7-to-10 mm protection). In draughting the Carrier, Cruiser, Nuffields' design team pushed the upper body armour out over the tracks. Stowage space for spares and crew gear lined the inside of that upper armour plating. Although the plate was not thick, the design counted on this interior stowage to add a modicum of extra protection for the crew. That assumption would not be borne out in battle. In the Western Desert, it was found that carrying water containers in the stowage bins helped protect against small arms fire and shell splinters. However, the 'Nuffield Carriers' would always be vulnerable to larger-calibre weapons.

Top Carrier, Cruiser Mk.IA: Production variant with A9-style machine gun turret. [2] The driver's position, engine compartment, and  rear carrier space remained uncovered. This vehicle has had a swivel-mounted Lewis gun added to its armament.

Bottom Carrier, Cruiser Mk.III: Although not intended as a gun carrier, [3] this vehicle has been armed with a captured Italian Breda 20/65 20mm cannon for anti-aircraft use. A Lewis gun mount has been added just behind the driver's position. Oddly, this 'sand-and-stone' Mk.III has not be fitted with the larger 'sand skirts' which were becoming standard kit in North Africa.

(To be continued ...)
______________________________________

[1] This engine would also power the Morris-built CS9 armoured car.

[2] The Carrier, Cruiser Mk.IA was the first real production type - the pre-production Mk.Is with its exposed Bren gun in 360° swivel mount was seen as unworkable (with most becoming Cruiser Gun Tractors).

[3] The Mk.III was meant to be a straighter Carrier version of the more heavily-armed Carrier, Cruiser Mk.II. However, even with gun mount shields installed, the Mk.II's gun positions were regarded as highly vulnerable in combat.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 21, 2021, 02:12:25 AM
Interesting...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 21, 2021, 04:16:15 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:

Very nice, gives rise to thoughts of a Christie wheel n' track carrier/APC.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on August 21, 2021, 08:09:49 AM
Oh... that is Gold !!!!!
What great thinking. I think you have just ignited the spark of inspiration.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 21, 2021, 10:21:57 AM
Thanks folks! But wait, there's more ...
_______________________________

When the A16E1 Heavy Cruiser prototype was cancelled, the Nuffield design team returned to standard Cruiser design - the object was a potential replacement for the in-service A9 and A10 fleets. A development contract had already been given to the rival London, Midland and Scottish Railway. The LMS's more heavily-armoured, A13R-based Covenanter tank should have been a winner. But Nuffields had their doubts about the untested Meadows powerplant - consisting of an entirely new, 340 hp Meadows D.A.V HO-12 petrol engine and a gearbox using Major Wilson's planetary steering. Nuffields had more faith in the slightly less powerful Rhea V-8 from the A13R.

Dubbed the A13M, the Nuffield Cruiser design strongly resembled the LMS Covenanter - the latter's turret having been designed by Nuffields. Where the Covenanter had forward hull radiators, the A13M featured a single, A9-style machine gun turret. In other respects, the A13M strongly resembled the original A13E1 prototype. Before planned A13M production could commence, combat reports from North Africa prompted a major redesign. A new emphasis would be placed on armour protection - especially in the front quadrant. This shifted weight in a way that would demand a near complete revision of the A13M design. The changes were significant enough to warrant a new designation - as the A15 Crusader.

Evolving the 'Christie Cruiser' - On to the A15 Crusader

Knowing that the redesigned Cruiser would have increased weight prompted a return to the A16E1's more powerful Rolls-Royce Rail V-12 engine. Although  an untested type, the Rail was based on the well-proven Rolls-Royce Kestrel aero-engine and had a great deal of commonality with the less powerful Rhea V-8 of the 'A13R'. The physically-longer Rail V-12 resulted in a five roadwheel arrangement to better balance the increased weight. The A13M's machine gun turret was ditched and the driver's position moved slightly. This shifted the c/g aft allowing for heavier bow armour and a well-sloped glacis plate. The turret front armour was also thickened. Other introduced changes reflected features of the then-most successful tank in the Western Desert - the German Panzer Mark III. The most obvious German influences being in the style of the gun mantlet and commander's cupola.

Despite its erratic start, the A15 Crusader was highly promising. However, there were disappointments. The tank had been designed for a 6-pounder main armament but that gun was delayed. Instead, the old 2-pounder was installed - a gun already outclassed by the 5 cm (1.97 inch) cannon in Afrika Korps tanks. But it got worse. The Germans were now introducing a higher-velocity 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 tank gun firing 5-pound AP shells. Being forced to retain the 2-pounder, the A15 Crusader Mk.Is and Mk.IAs handed the gun battle advantage to the newest Panzer Mark IIIs with longer cannons. When the Crusader Mk.IIs finally arrived armed with 6-pounders, they also featured thicker turret front armour. Both features were very welcome but the extra weight also made these vehicles slightly nose-heavy. However, the balance in North African tank battles had been re-established. For now ...

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 24, 2021, 07:51:45 AM
Nuffield A15 Gun Carriers

Nuffields' design team had sketched the layout for a close-support gun carrier to accompany its original A13 Cruiser tank design. That concept was revived for the A15 Crusader series when it was realized that the longer A15 hull could better cope with the gun carrier's inherent nose-heaviness. An opportunity to pursue the close-support design arose when a turretless A15 driving trainer prototype was returned to Nuffields. As a demonstrator, staff at the Ward End plant in Birmingham devised a simple, open fighting compartment intended to accommodate a range of artillery pieces for the direct-fire close-support role.

In the initial plan, a surplus 18-pounder field gun was envisioned. However, reports from North Africa suggested than a higher-velocity gun would soon be required. Accordingly, a 25-year-old QF 13 pounder 9 cwt anti-aircraft gun was adopted instead. This WWI piece was effectively an 18-pounder sleeved with a liner to fire smaller-diameter 3-inch shells. [1] As a result, all that was required was some reinforcement of the original gun mount design.  The short-barrelled (L/31) QF 13 pounder 9 cwt fired a 12.5 lb shell with a muzzle velocity of 2,150 ft/s. This compared very well with another L/31 tank gun about to enter service - the US M2 mounted in American-made Lee and Grant medium tanks. [2]

The prototype Nuffield A15CS (Close Support) Gun Carrier received a well-worn, 1918-vintage QF 13 pounder 9 cwt from storage. Despite its age the gun performed well and the downsides of its short barrel were offset by the reasonably good balance of the vehicle. However, the official review of the prototype found multiple faults - primarily in the design of the fighting compartment. The cramped conditions were a by-product of the original A15 hull design (in turn, dictated by British railway tunnel size). The open-topped fighting compartment - adopted to save weight - was also seen as excessively vulnerable to shell splinters for 'close-in' work. There was also doubt about whether such a vehicle was needed. Heavier Churchill tanks were already being fitted with howitzers to fill the close support role. The A15CS seemed redundant. For the time being, the A15CS was disarmed and pushed into a corner at Ward End.

Hard Slog - the Nuffield A15M Artemis 3-inch Gun Carrier

In North Africa, deploying the 6-pounder armed A15 Crusader Mk.II Cruiser tank took the advantage away from the Afrika Korps' long-gunned Panzer Mark IIIs. Unfortunately, a literally bigger threat was emerging. In 1942, the Germans introduced long guns on their larger Panzer Mark IVs. The stumpy, close-support 75 gave way for a new 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 high-velocity gun. Once again, the Desert Rats found themselves outmatched. The long-gunned Panzer Mark III remained a deadly opponent, but this new version of Panzer Mark IV dominated the battlefield. The arrival of US-made Grant medium tanks armed with L/31 M2 guns helped but those sponson-mounted and relatively low-velocity 75s were still outperformed by the longer-barrelled 7.5 cm KwK 40s.

In the background, Vickers had been working on a new 75 mm L/50 High Velocity (HV) tank gun. This new gun was to use a necked-down version of the 76.2 x 420R cartridge from the older QF 3-inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun. The projectiles would be the same 14 lb shells fired by US M2 sponson guns. However, with a 50-calibres length barrel the Vickers gun would have a higher velocity than the L/31 barrels on the Grant's M2. The Vickers gun was highly promising but 'productionizing' such guns would take time. As a concept demonstrator, Vickers was asked to convert a number of WWI-era QF 3-inch 20 cwt tubes for armoured vehicle use. [3] The result was the QF 3-inch L/45 HV gun. One such demonstrator piece was mounted experimentally in the former A15CS Gun Carrier hull. The 11-foot barrel of the QF 3-inch L/45 HV was deleterious to balance and vehicle handling but its firepower was impressive.

The production version of the revised A15CS Gun Carrier was the A15M Artemis aka 3-inch Gun Carrier. These vehicles used unmodified A15 Crusader hulls fitted with a roofed version of the A15CS Gun Carrier's casement replacing the turret and upper glacis plate. Pending availability of 75 mm guns, the QF 3-inch L/45 HV piece was retained. As the ad hoc arrangement that the A15M Artemis 3-inch Gun Carrier was, it would normally have become a footnote to history and quickly forgotten. But the Artemis deployed to North Africa at around the same time as the German's formidable new Tiger heavy tank. The only Allied vehicle with a change of defeating the Tiger was the A15M with its high-velocity 3-inch gun.

(To be continued ...)
_____________________________________

[1] This liner sleeve also served strengthen the wire-wound barrel of the original 18 pounder.

[2] The QF 13 pounder 9 cwt used a 76.2 x 295R shell - effectively an 18-pounder round necked-down to take a 13-pounder shell. The inserted sleeve reduced the bore from 3.3-inches (84 mm) to 3-inches (76.2 mm). By comparison, the American 75 mm cartridge was a 75 x 350 fired at 1,850 ft/s by the L/21 M2 gun.

[3] The QF 3-inch 20 cwt guns were still operating as back-ups in the anti-aircraft role. However, a number of stored gun systems were found to be lacking predictors and other equipment essential for AA work. These pieces were singled out for conversion to QF 3-inch L/45 HV status.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 26, 2021, 01:42:23 AM
 :smiley: :smiley:

George Eyston's endurance car Speed of the Wind was Kestrel powered, but it was also
run with a diesel under the name Flying Spray.
The engine used in the diesel configuration was a Kestrel-based sleeve-valve engine designed
by Harry Ricardo.

(https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/ricardo-diesel-kestrel-rr-d.jpg)
British engineer Harry Ricardo had built a diesel, sleeve-valve version of the Kestrel.
Known as the RR/D (Rolls-Royce/Diesel) or Ricardo Diesel. The engine could be fitted to Speed of the Wind
with only minor modifications. Compared to the Kestrel, the Ricardo Diesel’s bore was decreased by .25 in (6.35 mm)
to 4.75 in (121 mm). This provided room for the single sleeve valve around each cylinder. The sleeve valves were
driven from the rear of the engine by a gearset that ran along the outer side of each cylinder bank. A new cylinder
featured a vortex-type combustion chamber with a fuel injector positioned vertically atop the chamber. The Ricardo
Diesel displaced 1,170 cu in (19.2 L) and produced 340 hp (254 kW) at 2,400 rpm.

- Note the exposed sleeve-valve drive geartrain running along the side of the crankcase below the cylinder block.

(https://oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/flying-spray-april-1936-run.jpg)
Flying Spray at Bonneville 1936.

https://oldmachinepress.com/2020/03/20/eyston-eldridge-speed-of-the-wind-flying-spray/

Perhaps a diesel A15 would have resulted.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2021, 06:39:35 AM
... Perhaps a diesel A15 would have resiulted.  ;)

You have anticipated me Jon!  I'd actually written a whole storyline about Ricardo's Kestrel-based diesel but it got excised (for what passes for terseness with me)  ;D

Buuuut, it isn't the A15 (or any direct derivative) that gets the diesel  ;)

Actually, the RR/D was something of a prompt for this whole Nuffield story. With the Kestrel and Ricardo Diesel around, why was William Morris faffing about with Liberty 12s? Good engine but the Kestrel was a generation younger!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 26, 2021, 12:31:07 PM
Really liking those Crusaders.  :smiley:
Might be a handy excuse to get one of Tamiya's 1/48 Crusaders. I've got this hypothesis that 1/48 may actually be the ideal scale for armour modelling, marking a sweet spot between (too?) small 1/72 and (too?) big 1/35.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 27, 2021, 02:29:19 AM
Thanks Moritz! I have one more Crusader(ish) vehicle to mount before moving on to bigger tanks ... where 1/48 really could save on shelf space  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 27, 2021, 10:29:59 AM
Carrier Update - the A15-Based Nuffield Weapons Carrier

The A13R-based 'Nuffield Carrier' never quite lived up to its promise. Supply problems with Morris 6-cylinder engines [1] were solved by substituting the slightly more powerful Gardner 6-cylinder diesel. Ready availability from L. Gardner and Sons was key. The additional 8 hp was undetectable although the diesel's higher torque levels was useful. However, there was no helping the Nuffield Carrier's flimsy armour protection. Fortunately, work was already underway on a replacement vehicle.

Although it had a strong family resemblance to the earlier Nuffield Carrier, Nuffield's Weapons Carrier was a completely different vehicle. The Weapons Carrier made use of A15 Crusader suspension units. Armour protection was improved and the discredited 'stowage armour' concept was abandoned. Armour thickness almost doubled - increased to 12-to-22 mm thick (up from 6-to-14 mm). Other than being based on the A15 Crusader suspension, the new vehicle retained the general drivetrain layout of the Nuffield Carrier. However, the small Gardner engine was replaced with a much more powerful diesel. Rolls-Royce's Roadrunner was an inline 6-cylinder development of the RR/D (Rolls-Royce/Diesel) - Harry Ricardo's prewar Kestrel diesel derivative. [2]

At 195 hp, the Nuffield-built Rolls-Royce Roadrunner was almost twice as powerful as its predecessor. As a result, the new Weapons Carrier was faster than the earlier Nuffield Carrier while also being better-protected. Had the Weapons Carrier been available at the outset of the war, it probably would have seen much wider service. But, as it was, many of the Weapons Carrier's intended roles were already being handled by smaller, if less-capable, Universal Carriers. Other planned roles -  gun tugs and artillery spotting - were taken over by Nuffield's A15GT Culverin Gun Tractor (see below).

Despite its rather generic name, Nuffield's Weapons Carrier was rarely used as a simple gun carrier - that remained he job of the Universal 'Bren Gun Carriers'. Instead, the Weapons Carriers were assigned specialist roles. A major Weapons Carrier role was as a machine gun troop Platoon Commander’s Carrier. As a 'PCC', the Weapons Carrier housed three wireless sets - one short-range HF Wireless Set No.22 (later No.62) and two 'manpack' type Wireless Set No.31s. Vehicle protection was provided by one (or two) pintle-mounted Bren light machine guns.

However, the Nuffield Weapons Carrier is now best remembered as a mount for the Ordnance ML 4.2-inch mortar. While the Universal Carrier was used as both a 3-inch mortar mount and a tow vehicle for the 4.2-inch, the Universal was too small to carry the heavy mortar. The first self-propelled mount for this mortar was the Weapons Carrier, 4.2-inch Mortar Mk.I. A rotary mount was provided, allowing the mortar to be fired facing forward or aft (for shoot-and-scoot firing). Most Ordnance ML 4.2-inch mortars remained towed pieces but the Weapons Carrier, 4.2-inch Mortar Mk.Is and Mk.IAs offered obvious mobility advantages where speed of deployment was vital and mortar emplacement was not needed.

Have Gun, Will Travel - the A15GT Culverin Gun Tractor

The A15GT Culverin Gun Tractor came about as a result of the unexpected success of Nuffield's A15M Artemis in the gun tug role. When it was decided not to re-arm the Artemis with new Vickers 75 mm HV guns, some A15Ms were field-modified with US M2 75s recovered from the battlefield. Other Artemis simply had their worn-out 3-inch guns removed and tow hitches fitted for use as artillery tractors. These ad hoc gun tug conversions worked surprisingly well but they were always few in number. Nuffield received inquiries from the Royal Artillery about producing new-production Artemis gun tugs.

The problem was that production of A15 hulls was winding down at Ward End. So too was assembly of Rolls-Royce Rail V-12s. In response to the RA's query, Nuffields proposed a new vehicle based upon a slightly stretched A15 hull to be powered by the related Rhea V-8. This engine was less powerful than the Rail but spare Rhea V-8s were available. The new gun tug would have a superstructure similar to that of the Artemis but, with V-8 engine fitted, the fighting compartment could now be made longer. This proposal was accepted and the A15GT Culverin Gun Tractor was produced at Ward End until stocks of A15 components and Rhea engines were exhausted.

Being well-protected the A15GT was popular with the gunners. Consideration was also given to producing a Mk.II ammunition carrier variant but this was never pursued. The Mk.IA variant had a more upright front plate - providing more interior space at the expense of a slight reduction in protection. The Culverin  Mk.III artillery spotter variant was only produced in small numbers. It differed most obviously from the gun tractors in being fully roofed.

(To be continued ...)
_________________________________________

[1] 'Nuffield Carrier' production had all but ceased after the Luftwaffe bombing of the Morris engine works at Courthouse Green. (And, once supplies of 96 hp Morris 6-cylinders resumed, wheeled gun tractors were given priority for these engines.) Small-scale 'Nuffield Carrier' production was resumed using Gardner diesels.

[2] In contrast with the 'Ricardo Diesel', the Roadrunner used tappet valves in place of Ricardo's sleeve valves. As a result the bore did not need to be reduced to fit the sleeve valve gearsets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on August 28, 2021, 08:15:51 AM
 :smiley:

Nice bit about the six-cylinder diesel.  :icon_fsm:

A Kestrel based 6 diesel would probably be a whole hell of a lot lighter than a GM
6-71 for a similar output, but I have to wonder about durability.
 ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on August 28, 2021, 09:36:37 AM
Loving your work.
Hitting right on a couple of my previous builds, so I am so pleased some of us think alike  :smiley: :smiley:
(https://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix/whatif/AFV/crusader/crusader5.jpg) (https://www.modelblokez.org.au/bthpix/whatif/churchill/churchy5.jpg)

I have a junked Cromwell Models A9 Cruiser that obstinately refused to play nicely during the build phase, that may get a rerun with some of these ideas.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 29, 2021, 01:11:06 AM
... A Kestrel based 6 diesel would probably be a whole hell of a lot lighter than a GM 6-71 for a similar output, but I have to wonder about durability...

Thanks Jon. My first thought was a Bedford-built 6-71. Actually, I'm puzzled as to why the 'Jimmy' wasn't built by GM affiliates abroad - especially in the UK. I have read that the coal lobby did all it could to discourage diesel use in Britain (but I don't know how true that is).

You're probably right about durability ... but I needed a Kestrel diesel derivative for what comes next  ;)

...I have a junked Cromwell Models A9 Cruiser that obstinately refused to play nicely ...

Brian: Love those builds! Your Nuffield 'Jagdpanzer' is gorgeous  :-*  And your Churchillian SP just says: "We're big, we're lumbering, and we'd probably destroy you even if we didn't want to ... but we really, really do want to!"

Looking forward to see what you come up with for your obstinate A9. Once I've wrapped up my Nuffield musings, I just have to have a go at an A9/A10 Cruiser-based carrier of some sort  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 29, 2021, 01:27:50 AM
your Churchillian SP just says: "We're big, we're lumbering, and we'd probably destroy you even if we didn't want to ... but we really, really do want to!"


 ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 30, 2021, 01:50:14 AM
A34 Cossack - A Russo-British A15 Replacement

Under the Anglo-Soviet Military Supplies Agreement of 27 June 1942, Britain pledged to supply Stalin with armaments free of charge. This included British- and Canadian-made tanks (and other armoured vehicles). However, what the Red Army really needed in those dark days was increased numbers of their own, most-favoured T-34 medium tanks. Accordingly, an addenda to the June 1942 agreement made arrangements for T-34 plans and hardware samples to be provided to Britain to enable licensed T-34 production. As Nuffields had relevant Christie suspension experience, production of British T-34s was assigned to Ward End. But this production effort was not without its challenges.

In early October 1942, a sample T-34 hull arrived by rail at Birmingham having been shipped by Arctic Convoy from Archangelsk to Liverpool. Problems arose immediately. The early-model sample T-34 hull was essentially empty. Neither turret nor Kharkov V-2 diesel engine were included. Inquiries revealed that the Soviets would be unable to supply such items to Britain - the Red Army's immediate needs were simply too pressing. That left the design team at Ward End to their own devices. A quick study showed that the A15 turret would easily fit on the T-34. [2] Likewise, the Crusader's Rolls-Royce Rail V-12 and transmission fit the T-34 hull. However, the A15 turret was rejected as obsolete by the Soviets and, in reality, the 340 hp Rail lacked sufficient power for this heavier vehicle.

The solution to engine power proved relatively simple. Rolls-Royce informed Nuffields that, with supercharging, its Rail could easily match the Soviet diesel's output of 500 hp. That left the problems of turret and armament. The Matilda II's well-protected, cast turret fit but its 2-pounder (40 mm) armament was judged out-of-date. Fortunately, a larger turret with the same turret-ring size had just become available. This was the turret from the recently introduced Churchill Mk.III, armed with a high-velocity 6-pounder main gun. This weapon was of much smaller calibre than that Red Army T-34 guns - the 76 mm F-34s - but this was acceptable to the Soviets. [1] Shipments began of what the Red Army called the T-34 britanskiy birmingem. These 6-pounder armed T-34bb vehicles were adopted by the Red Army as tank-istrebiteli (or tank destroyers). [2]

Top An early Nuffield-built T-34 britanskiy birmingem in Red Army service as a tank destroyer, Spring 1943.

Once shipments of Nuffield-built T-34s were underway, the Director of the Royal Armoured Corps also expressed interest in the vehicle. Prior to export, some T-34s destined for the Soviet Union were successfuly tested at the RAC Centre at Bovington. As a result of these Dorset trials, the War Office requested transfer of some Nuffield T-34 production to the RAC under the designation A34 Cossack. The British Army knew the loaned T-34bb as the A34 Cossack Tank, Heavy Cruiser, Mark Is. The 'Anglicized' production variant was the A34 Cossack Mk.IA. The slightly later A34 Cossack Mk.IIA [4] was a purely experiment model - essentially a Mk.I hull fitted with the Raptor V-12 diesel engine from the T-34bd (Britanskiy dizel'. [3] This powertrain concept was then 'productionized' as the A34 Cossack Mk.III.

After the first British encounters with Germany's huge Tiger tanks, the pressure was on for up-gunned Cossacks. [5] The first in service was the A34 Cossack Mk.IVA armed with a Royal Ordnance QF 75 mm gun - a 6-pounder bored out to accept US 75 mm shells in 'necked' cartridges. The result was greater HE capacity shells but at much-reduced velocity (620 m/s - versus 1,082 m/s for 6-pounders firing APCR rounds). Other than in the calibre of its main gun and the design of ammunition stowage racks, the A34 Cossack Mk.IVA - being Raptor-engined - was virtually unchanged from the preceding, 6-pounder armed Mk.III. For the first time, the RAC was given priority on Cossack delivery. Only later would the Red Army receive QF 75 mm-armed A34 Cossack Mk.IVs built to Soviet standards.

The ultimate gun for the A34 Cossack series was the Vickers 75 mm L/50 HV. This piece also fired US 75 mm shells but from a much larger and more powerful cartridge. However, whereas the RO QF 75 mm fit within the A34's Churchill III turret, the bigger 75 mm L/50 HV would not. As a result, an entirely new turret was needed. At a glance, the turret of the A34 Cossack Mk.V looked like an extended A34 Mk.III turret. It wasn't. Sitting on a 'full-sized' 1,425 mm turret ring, the new turret was larger overall to accommodate the Vickers gun. [6] There were no Mk.V variants deliveries to the Soviet Union. Ward End production of the Mk.V was quickly eclipsed by the A34 Cossack Mk.VA which eliminated the bow machine gunner's position in favour of greater 75 mm ammunition stowage space.

Bottom Royal Tank Regiment A34 Cossack Mk.VA deployed in Normandy, July 1944. For greater protection, the crew of this otherwise near-pristine Cossack have welded tank tread sections (likely from a Churchill) to their turret sides. Note the Vickers-gunned tanks' distinguishing features - lengthy gun with muzzle brake, sloped mantlet, and longer turret rear 'bustle'.

(Fin)

___________________________________________

[1] The 6-pounder tank gun had a muzzle velocity of 892 m/s (with early armour-piercing rounds) versus only 680 m/s for the Soviet 76 mm F-34. Ideally, the T-34bb tank-istrebiteli and 76 mm-armed T-34s acted in concert. The T-34bb would be the dedicated 'hole puncher' while the T-34/76 performed the close-support role.

[2] In this role, the British-built vehicles made the Red Army's domestically-produced tank-istrebitel' - the T-34-57 - redundant. This allowed Soviet production to focus on 76 mm-gunned T-34s. However, some Nuffield tanks were rearmed locally with the T-34-57's longer ZiS-4 main gun and the ZiS-4 would also be fitted to T-34bb/57s (see below).

[3] The Red Army was anxious for diesel power for fuel commonality with their domestically-produced T-34/76 fleet. (The full Soviet designation was T-34bb(dd) for Britanskiy-Birmingemskiy dizel'nyy dvigatel' but, in Red Army usage, this was invariable truncated to T-34bd.) The Raptor was a development of the Rail incorporating diesel elements from the Nuffield-built Roadrunner 6-cylinder engine.

[4] Mk.II was a British admin designation for the T-34bb/57 - a Mk.I delivered with its turret adapted to take high-velocity Soviet guns upon arrival (these being 57 mm ZiS-4 L/73 cannons).

[5] Lucky shots from a Churchill's 6-pounder were able to disable a Tiger at Robaa, Tunisia, in February 1943. The similarly-armed Cossack Mk.IA was not ideal but its well-sloped hull was, at least, better-protected than that of Churchill.

[6] The A34 Cossack Mk.V series turret ring size was the same as that of the original T-34/76. Since the earlier A34s had removable spacer rings, in theory, any early-model A-34 could be upgraded with the larger turret.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 16, 2021, 08:25:06 AM
This started out as a Naval GB concept but I don't think that carrier aircraft qualify ...

Curtiss Design 92C (XSB4C-1) 'Super Helldiver'

Even before the US Navy's new Curtiss SB2C Helldiver divebomber had entered production, the Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) was planning for its replacement. (That would prove prescient when the trouble-prone Helldiver did finally emerge.) Curtiss put forward two proposals as potential SB2C replacements. The first was a February 1941 submission for a heavily-revised Helldiver airframe fitted with a tricycle landing gear and an R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone engine. [1] This was the Curtiss Design 93, two prototypes of which were ordered as the XSB3C-1.

Due to its size (and poor handling qualities), the SB2C would be nicknamed 'The Beast'. Despite that, Curtiss was proposing an enlarged, 'growth variant' as its replacement. As planned, the replacement SB3C could carry a greater payload thanks to its larger and more powerful 18-cylinder engine. The key question for the BuAer was: When would that R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone engine become available? In mid-1941, Wright Aeronautical - the engine-building subsidiary of Curtiss-Wright - could not provide an answer. As a hedge, the Curtiss airframe division offered a less challenging alternative to the US Navy. This was the Curtiss Design 92C. [2]

Enter the Single-Seat Curtiss Design 92C

Submitted in March 1941, the Curtiss Design 92C was a much more straightforward adaptation of the SB2C airframe.  Retaining the lower-powered Wright R-2600-8 Twin Cyclone of the SB2C, the Design 92C abandoned the rear gunner in favour of a shorter, lighter fuselage. Although similar in appearance, little commonality with the original Helldiver fuselage remained. The forward fuselage was shortened by over 3 feet by pushing the engine bearers well back. The rear fuselage was lengthened by a foot. The result was a much better-handling machine than the SB2C as well as being faster and longer-ranged. [3]

The trade-offs were in warload. Obviously, the rear defensive guns had be given up along with the observer. But the bomb bays were also shortening. The same bomb load could be enclosed but there was no longer space for a swinging bomb crutch. It was envisioned that level bombing would be the norm. (The difficulty in aiming by the sole crew member being noted in the BuAer critique.) For diving attacks, wing racks for twin 500 lb bombs would be employed to ensure accuracy of bomb delivery. [4]

Initially, the BuAer favoured the larger Curtiss Design 93 as the XSB3C-1. Curtiss completed a full scale mock-up of this aircraft in December 1941. However, after Pearl Harbor, it became apparent that Army B-29 long-range bombers would have priority for R-3350 engines. Accordingly, the entire XSB3C-1 order was cancelled. Instead, the contract was amended to single Design 92C prototype as the US Navy's XSB4C-1. This R-2600-powered airframe was also to be capable of accepting the larger R-3350 when available to the USN in numbers. [5]

The Curtiss XSB4C-1 - Single-Seat 'Super Helldiver'

The prototype Curtiss Design 92C was built as XSB4C-1 03744 (this BuAer number taken from the cancelled second prototype XSB3C-1). This prototype had components taken directly SB2C-1 production line combined with the heavily revised fuselage structure. As a result, prototype assembly proceeded very quickly at Curtiss' Buffalo plant. As result, XSB4C-1 03744 was completed at Curtiss' Kenmore Avenue Plant in  Buffalo, NY, by early August 1942. Curtiss-Wright Chief Test Pilot, H.L. Child put the aircraft through its paces. [6] On the third test flight, the XSB4C-1's engine threw a rod and 'Skipper' Child had to make a dead-stick landing. This did not speak well of quality control at Curtiss-Wright's R-2600 production facilities. However, the forced landing demonstrated rather dramatically the XSB4C-1's improved flying characteristics as compared with 'The Beast'.

Production schemes were worked out for the SB4C-1 'Super Helldiver' at Curtiss-Wright's Columbus, OH, factory as well as licensed production as the SB2F-2 by Fairchild-Canada. However, in light of experience with pre-approving production for the troublesome SB2C, no firm orders would be placed while flight testing was still underway. In the end, the Bureau of Aeronautics had a change of heart. It was concluded that the improved performance of the XSB4C-1 did not fully compensate for the loss of a rear gunner. Nor was the US Navy convinced that restricting dive bombing attacks to wing racks alone was acceptable. Thus, the sole XSB4C-1 remained at Buffalo and was returned to Curtiss ownership. BuAer 03744 served out its days as an SB2C trials aircraft. US Army interest in the related XA-40 project had also waned. The Curtiss Design 93C was a dead project.

In late November 1943, the XSB4C-1 was testing a 1,900 hp XR-2600-20 installation. This new engine burst an oil line and caught fire on a test flight. Forty miles out from the Buffalo airfield, test pilot Herb Fisher bailed out. The flaming XSB4C-1 crashed into Lake Erie, burying itself in the mud almost 80 feet down south of Dunnville, Ontario. Herb Fisher was quickly rescued by a training launch out of USCG Station Erie. No value was placed on retrieving the XSB4C-1 and the wreck of the sole 'Super Helldiver' remains where it fell.

_______________________________________

[1] There were other revisions to the original SB2C airframe. These included a lengthened rear fuselage (to improve stability) as well as an enlarged fin/rudder and elevators. Fixed armament was to consist of 6 x .50-cal Browning wing guns (or 4 x 20 mm cannons), an increased bomb bay load, and wing hard points for 2 x 500 lb bombs.

[2] The internal Curtiss designation Design 92 had originally been applied to the XSB2C-2 Helldiver floatplane conversion. When that seaplane project was was redesignated, the 'Super Helldiver' concept inherited the Design 92 designation. It is not clear whether the 'C' suffix indicates that the final design was preceded by two interim concepts.

[3] The longer-range of the Design 92C was partly due to reduced airframe weight but was owed primarily to the optional second fuselage fuel tank. The latter nearly doubled fuel load but at the cost of c/g issues.

[4] The 1,600 lb AP Mark 1 could be carried internally but this armour-piercing bomb could no longer be dropped in diving attacks.

[5] The 2,200 hp R-3350 had a 55.78 inch diameter and a weight of 2,670 lbs. The 1,700 hp R-2600-8 had a 55 inch diameter and weighed almost 650 lbs less. The R-3350 engine installation in the Design 83E would be similar to that for the USAAF's XA-40 attack aircraft (that airframe differing mainly in lacking carrier gear and adopting twin 37 mm wing guns). An alternative future engine was the 1,900 hp R-2600-20 to be installed in the Design 93F.

[6] As a naval aviator, Lt. (USN) Henry Lloyd Child was ideally suited to lead the SB4C flight testing. In this, 'Skipper' Child was assisted by fellow Curtiss-Wright test pilots Robert Fausel and B.T. Hulse.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on October 16, 2021, 12:45:16 PM
The lengthened fuselage really does make a difference in turning the original short and stubby Helldiver into something more aesthetically pleasing.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 19, 2021, 09:29:14 AM
Thanks Jeffry  :smiley:  More on the 'Super Helldiver' theme but no real backstory this time but a bit of arm-waving is needed ...

I'm imagining a range of options for submissions to eclipse the rejected SB3C concept. Here, I've grouped some of those options onto example airframes. The basic airframe features an extended rear fuselage with twin tails for more stable handling. Options are:

1: Inverted-gull anhedral on inner wing panels
-- Benefits are a slightly deepened bomb bays and shorter/lighter main undercarriage legs

2: Improved defensive armament, remotely-controlled gun turrets option
-- General Electric Model 2CGD50URC1 dorsal and Model 2CGD50LRC1 ventral gun turrets

3: Improved defensive armament, manned gun turret option
-- Grumman Type 150SE electrically-operated dorsal turret

4: Improved offensive armament, internally-mounted torpedo
-- Bomb bay changes to accommodate proposed 12-foot torpedo

The latter option involved Curtiss' proposal that the British 18-inch aerial torpedo be modified and adopted by the US Navy as an armament option specifically for the SB5C. The British torpedo would be much shortened to fit witin the bomb bays. Shortening the torpedo body would shorten the weapon's range which meant closer-in attacks. To compensate, the basic SB5C would be armed with 20 mm Hispano cannons to suppress defensive fire from ships under attack.

If the standard SB2C wing was adopted for the SB5C, the lower bomb door sections would need to be removed for clearance. If the inverted-gull form was adopted, the increased 'head room' in the bomb bays would allow the bomb doors to be fully closed. In either case, the dive bombing 'trapese' swinging-arm would need to be removed before loading torpedos into the SB5C. The emphasis on torpedos would be Curtiss' counter-argument against the Grumman TBF doing almost anything the Helldiver could ... but better.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2021, 09:13:39 AM
A Fury monoplane derivative is a notion that I keep returning to. This time, it will be more backstory drive ...

Sidney Camm and the Hawker 'High Speed Fury Monoplane'

In August 1933, Hawker Chief Designer Sidney Camm submitted his 'High Speed Fury Monoplane' concept to the Air Ministry for consideration. Officialdom was (unofficially) interested but there was no AM Specification for such an aircraft and, therefore, no funds allocated for such a project. As an experimental aircraft, the Air Ministry had already funded the Supermarine Type 224 monoplane fighter. But RJ Mitchell's Type 224 had displayed a disappointing maximum speed of only 228 mph.

As submitted, the 'High Speed Fury Monoplane' was powered by the same engine - an evaporatively-cooled, 600 hp Rolls-Royce Goshawk V-12. [1] Of less advanced construction than the Supermarine Type 224, the Camm design would also result in a lighter, more nimble fighter. Instead of a cranked wing with heavily-trousered landing gear, the 'High Speed Fury Monoplane' featured a simple, tapered planform and dainty, cantilevered main undercarriage legs with Dowty internally-sprung wheels. Camm was convinced that his team had designed the superior fighter. But neither the Air Ministry nor the RAF was yet convinced that this 'High Speed Fury Monoplane' represented a sufficient advance to warrant development.

In mid-October 1933, Sidney Camm presented his 'High Speed Fury Monoplane' concept to the Hawker Board of Directors. With the active support of TO Sopwith, the Board approved funding for a private venture prototype. But there were stipulations. Little of the production Fury remained in Camm's 'High Speed Fury Monoplane'. To limit development costs, the Board insisted that the actual Fury fuselage be retained. It was also suggested that the Air Ministry's preferred experimental steam-cooled Goshawk be temporarily abandoned in favour of the conventionally-cooled 640 hp Rolls Royce Kestrel VI V-12. The two engines were similarly sized but, the Board felt, the Kestrel would be more acceptable to the lucrative export market.

Faster Fury - Refining the 'High Speed Monoplane'

At its best, the troublesome Supermarine Type 224 had proven to be only 5 mph faster than the pending Fury II biplane. [2] Clearly, the Supermarine Type 224 was no yardstick. Rather, the goal must be for Hawkers to produce another world-beater. To Camm, that meant a further redesign. He would need a budget sufficient to cover a fully-retractable main undercarriage and an entirely new empennage - the objective for the latter being the elimination of all struts, bracing-wires, gaps, and other drag-inducing excrescences. The Board agree to this plan. The new Hawker 'High Speed Monoplane' would combine the basic fuselage structure and engine of the Fury II biplane with new wings and tailplane.

The refined 'High Speed Monoplane' retained the basic wing design of the August 1933 concept. The planform had more sweep on its leading edge, less on the trailing edge. However, the basic structural approach and total wing area (200 sq ft) remained unchanged. A key difference, of course, was the incorporation of bays for the new retractable Dowty undercarriage main legs. Those undercarriage legs attached to new centre-section 'stub' - as did the outer wings wing panels. The empennage was entirely new, as was a retractable tailwheel.

Those centre-section 'stubs' were also designed to allow future additions to fixed armament. An immediate armaments change was in adopting the fuselage-side armament position from the August 1934 concept. This revised gun position was designed to accommodate .303-inch machine guns - either Vickers Mk.IV or Browning - or the larger .5-inch Vickers gun. Wing hard points were to be included - outboard of the retracted main wheels - for Small Bomb Carriers or racks.

The cockpit position was as it had been for the biplane Fury. The enclosed cockpit from the August 1933 design was adopted. That sliding Perspex canopy was moved aft to match the original Fury cockpit location. Plans included the use of a reflector gun sight (although the RAF had yet to make a selection of its preferred type). New to the cockpit was a hand lever which which the pilot would manually charge the undercarriage retraction system ... although it was still to be decided whether that system would be pneumatically- or hydraulically-operated.

(To be continued ...)

_____________________________________

[1] The 9-cylinder Bristol Mercury radial was offered as an alternative engine.

[2] The Type 224 and Fury biplanes also had roughly the same wing area - 295 and 252 sq ft respectively. However, the Fury II was over 1,100 lbs lighter than the Supermarine monoplane.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 26, 2021, 01:28:38 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQpgBjI93lF8szZaNMccihG3_fLAxjlJKpLaB7cpTnNM5dwTo6M583QRptCi7TsIWyJZnk&usqp=CAU)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 27, 2021, 08:21:38 AM
Faster Fury - Prototyping the 'High Speed Monoplane'

As Hawker Aircraft proceeded with their Private Venture at Kingston upon Thames, the Air Ministry found funds for further development. On the quiet, Hawkers was informed of the intention to procure an initial batch of 30 airframes. [1] The prototype aircraft flew from Brooklands, Surrey, in March 1935. But, as it happened, this prototype was never bought for the RAF. Having gleaned considerable aviation press attention for Hawkers, the prototype was written-off in a hard landing in early December 1935. [2]

Top Hawker Harrier (High-Speed Fury Monoplane) demonstrator, G-ADHF, late Summer 1935.

The first RAF order for what they dubbed the Hawker Harrier monoplane fighter was placed in October 1935. This was for a half dozen Harrier Mk.I fighters. Production proceeded briskly on the fuselages but Kingston proved slower producing wings for the new type. These delays were compounded by large orders also received RAF for improved Fury II biplanes for the RAF. Something had to give if further Harrier orders were to be realized.

Since Hawker Aircraft had taken control of the Gloster Aircraft Company the previous year. It was decided to shift final assembly of Harrier Mk.Is to Gloster's Hucclecote facility. All further Harrier production would also take place at Hucclecote. These decisions had a ripple effect. First, the RAF decided to pass the new Gloster Gauntlet biplane fighters would be passed on to a Reserve squadron. After being informed, Gloster's chief designer left the firm. With Henry Folland gone, it seemed that Glosters would simply become a branch-plant of Hawkers.

The Harrier Mk.I entered squadron service with No.19 ('XIX') Squadron at RAF Duxford in May 1936, replacing that unit's year-old Gloster Gauntlets. An oddity of the six Mk.Is was that tailplanes for these fighters were delivered to Hucclecote complete with rudder stripes. [3] By the Autumn of 1936, No.19's strength had been made up by four-gunned Harrier Mk.IAs - including one Mk.I conversion.

Bottom A Hawker Harrier Mk.I of No.19 Squadron. With its wings yet to be attached, the reserve fuel tank is visible in the wing centre section. (Inset) K8350 was converted to four-gunned Mk.IA standard in early October 1936.

(To be continued ...)

_____________________________________

[1] While The Right Honourable Neville Chamberlain, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, oversaw cutting back on on planned RAF spending, the Air Ministry expanded its Experimental Monoplane Programme. To the Exchequer, it appeared that only six Hawker monoplanes were to be purchased for evaluation. In fact, the AM had already allocated 50 RAF serials to the new type.

[2] Company demonstrator G-ADHF was written-off while being flown by a visiting Estonian Air Force pilot.
Leitnant Tarmo Pilve flared out into what would have been a perfect 3-point landing - had the landing gear legs been extended. This was not an unusual occurrence in these early days of retractable undercarriages.

At the time of the accident, Estonia was operating a dozen Bristol Bulldog II biplane fighters. The accident may have soured Estonian plans to order 12 Hawker monoplane fighters but straitened economic circumstances in the Baltic republic will have also played a part.

[3] Rudder striping on RAF machines had been discontinued almost 2 years earlier. To follow RAF directives, the Duxford Mk.Is had their rudder stripes covered with silver dope by the time the 'stripeless' Mk.IAs began to arrive in Cambridgeshire.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 27, 2021, 09:23:17 AM
Not quite a Fury, not quite a Hurricane. The Harrier's looking good! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 27, 2021, 01:59:17 PM
(https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/webImage/20210402220354/1434615241159.jpg)

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier (https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier)

 ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 28, 2021, 05:00:56 AM
https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier (https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier)

Yup, most of the alliterative names for Hawker aircraft end getting recycled (both RW and whif).

Mind you, somebody at Kingston thought that 'Hedgehog', 'Hornbill', and 'Hoopoe' were evocative names for airplanes  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Acree on October 28, 2021, 07:21:17 AM
Looks vaguely Belgian (as in a Renard fighter) to me!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 29, 2021, 05:54:00 AM
Looks vaguely Belgian (as in a Renard fighter) to me!

Well ... that sure was prescient!  8)

___________________________

The two-gun installation for the Hawker Harrier was perfected at Hucclecote by Gloster's new Chief Designer, George Carter. This armament was introduced for the first fully Gloster-produced variant - the Harrier Mk.II. With this change, weight of fire doubled with four .303-inch Vickers Mk.V machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Of course, the loaded weight of the fighter increased as well. This was countered, in part, by the installation of the 690 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel VI engine introduced to the production line in July 1937. Thus engined, the aircraft became the Harrier Mk.IIA.

Top A Hawker Harrier Mk.I of No.19 Squadron during the 1938 Munich Crisis. Note that this aircraft is fitted with a wireless R/T. No.19 Squadron was scheduled to move to a forward location in NE France but was stood down with the Munich Agreement of 30 September. Shortly afterwards, No.19 re-equipped with the new Hawker Hurricane fighter.

Hucclecote had taken on development on a more powerful Harrier derivative - work which had begun at Kingston. The key change was to be the installation of the larger, 950 hp Rolls-Royce PV.12 (or Merlin C as it had been named). However, the Air Ministry was reluctant to commit Merlins to a fighter which was incapable of mounting the RAF's preferred armament of eight wing-mounted, unsynchronized .303-inch Browning machine guns. This, in turn, forced Glosters to focus on other options.

Although the Harrier had been developed with export in mind, foreign interest in the monoplane fighter had failed to turn into firm orders. Potential exports either had to be declined - as in the cases of Bolivia and Republican Spain - or customers were hedging their bets and waiting for newer, Merlin-powered alternatives. A surprise order materialized from Belgium. That country had been developing indigenous fighters but the all-metal Renard R.36 had proven a disappointment. Alfred Renard continued development but the Aviation Militaire concluded that a "chasse monoplan intérimaire" was required.

A license was obtained for Avions Fairey to assemble Harriers at Gosselies. Standard Harrier III components would be supplied by Gloster. These parts would then be adapted for Belgian-supplied equipment and completed for delivery to the Aviation Militaire. This might have been a simple affair but the Belgians requested a substantial number of changes to suit their needs. The result was that Avions Fairey had to adjust and modify each airframe. The major change was the installation of the powerplant intended for the Renard R.36 - the heavier Hispano-Suiza 12Ycrs V-12.

The HS.12Ycrs was to be a moteur-canon which would further complicated matters. Fortunately for Avions Fairey, France was unable (or unwilling) to deliver moteur-canon engines or their HS.404 guns to Belgium in early 1938. Instead, Hispano-Suiza substituted standard, 860 hp 12Ycrs engines (fitted with synchronization gears but lacking the hollow propeller shafts needed for the moteur-canons). [1] Accordingly, Avions Fairey revised its adaptation. In place of one 20 mm cannon and twin, synchronized 7.65 mm FN-Browning guns, their 'Be.2' variant would be armed with twin 13.2 mm FN-Browning machine guns in the fuselage sides. To counter increased engine weight, the radiator bath was related aft under the cockpit - adopted from Gloster's Merlin-powered Harrier studies. [2]

Bottom An Avions Fairey (Hawker) Harrier 'Be.2' of 4/II/2 Escadrille of the Aviation Militaire/Militaire Luftvaart in late 1938. This aircraft has the original colour scheme but, in the later style, has its individual number applied to the tailfin. The 'Cocotte Blanchje is worn on the fuselage side.

By 1940, these aircraft were repainted in toned-down camouflage patterns. Most will also have had their wooden propellers replaced with 3-bladed Fairey-Reed metal props. This aircraft was destroyed on the ground by Luftwaffe strafing of Nivelles on the morning of 10 May 1940.

(To be continued ...)

_____________________________________

[1] The Renard R.36 engine had produced 910 hp for take-off but Hispano-Suiza had derated the 12Ycrs to improve reliability.

[2] Without a cannon, the 2,200 cid French engine weighed 100 lbs more than the Rolls-Royce Kestrel.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on October 29, 2021, 06:12:05 AM
yes, very nice.
Super convincing
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 29, 2021, 07:30:31 AM
https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier (https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier)

Yup, most of the alliterative names for Hawker aircraft end getting recycled (both RW and whif).

Mind you, somebody at Kingston thought that 'Hedgehog', 'Hornbill', and 'Hoopoe' were evocative names for airplanes  ???

I dunno the Hoopoe is pretty cool looking.  :smiley:
(https://i2.wp.com/birdwatching.com.na/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Bird-Hoopoe-.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on October 29, 2021, 03:44:24 PM
I quite like where you're taking the Hawker Harrier. It looks elegant and purposeful all at the same time.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on October 29, 2021, 04:45:31 PM
This is outstanding as far as I'm concerned. Looks more like a should have been than a what if.
Up their with your Supermarine 224/S6.

Just superb ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 30, 2021, 02:09:04 AM
Any chance of any going to Sweden...perhaps with Bristol Pegasus radial engines?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 30, 2021, 02:36:57 AM
Thanks folks  :D

Any chance of any going to Sweden...perhaps with Bristol Pegasus radial engines?

I had pondered on a radial-engined version but hadn't thought of Sweden ... interesting idea.

I dunno the Hoopoe is pretty cool looking...

So too is the Hornbill in its own way. But, as names go, nothing says 'combat-ready' - especially for 'fleet reconnaissance' - quite like a Hedgehog!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 30, 2021, 02:49:54 AM
Triggering inspiration:

(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/357/pics/90_3.jpg)

And of course, this also brings us to the Finnish ones...

(http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/357/pics/78_1_b2.jpg)

Just saying... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 30, 2021, 02:59:11 AM
Or if you prefer:

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/62/07/d0/6207d0650c9574dc4d73544889739c2c.jpg)

(https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/hurricane_finland_1-jpg.450563/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 30, 2021, 05:58:15 AM
Gotta like that Hart scheme (and it's in the family). But, first, the last of the Brit content ...
_________________________________________________

Last of its Breed - the Hawker Harrier Mk.IV

The Hawker Harrier Mk.II proved a mixed blessing. The fixed armament was doubled but still regarded as inadequate - eight .303-inch guns now being considered ideal by RAF planners. However, that ideal represented an RAF focused on interceptors. What had become apparent was that the 'halfway-house' Hawker was actually the only British fighter capable of counter Germany's newly-introduced Messerschmitt Bf 109B monoplane. And the 'heavy gunned' Harrier Mk.IV was tailored specifically to meet that German challenger.

The layout of the two machines was remarkably similar - 5,000 lb, single-engined, low-winged fighters with outward retracting main undercarriages. Both had flush-riveted metal wings but there the structural similarities ended. No-one would have argued that the Messerschmitt's construction wasn't a generation ahead of the Harrier - with its fabric-covered, steel-tube fuselage. Despite that, performance was roughly comparable ... although the Bf 109B-1 had a slight edge in top speed. In turn, with its slightly larger wing area, a Harrier could always out-turn a Messerschmitt. [1]

Powerplants were another distinction. The Bf 109B-1 was powered by a 680 hp Junkers Jumo 210Da - a compact, inverted V-12. The classic Kestrel of the Harrier was of larger displacement but was actually slightly lighter than the Jumo. For the Harrier Mk.IV, a 745 hp Kestrel XVI was adopted. That slight power advantage was nullified with the introduction of the Bf 109B-2 with its metal, variable-pitch propeller.

The Harrier Mk.IV's key advantage was in weight of fire. The RAF had finally accepted that its desired 8-gunned fighters would be slow to enter service. As an interim measure, the RAF was willing to follow the Belgian lead on heavier calibre guns. The Harrier Mk.IV was armed with twin .5-inch Vickers machine guns synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. These guns had both greater range and more hitting power than the German fighter's pair of rifle-calibre MG17 machine guns. [2]

Also for the Harrier Mk.IV adopted was an aft-positioned radiator. The Belgian machines had shown that there were aerodynamic advantages to a well-shaped radiator bath in this position. It also allowed for much more careful shaping of the ventral air intake for the new updraught SU carburettor. These changes resulted in a slight increase in top speed - to 280 mph - but at some cost in low-speed handling. The Harrier Mk.IV was now somewhat tail-heavy. This worsened handling especially on landing - where the Harrier had always been something of a handful for novice pilots.

These handling challenges were to have been solved in Gloster's proposed Harrier Mk.V. Although similar to the Mk.IV, the Harrier Mk.V was to be powered by the new Rolls-Royce Peregrine V-12. [3] Of similar size to the Kestrel, the Peregrine was 100 lbs heavier - which would go some way towards solving the Mk.IV's tail-heaviness. The Peregrine was also more powerful. With the Peregrine's 885 hp output, the Mk.V's performance increase would have been dramatic. However, the RAF was now confident in sufficient numbers of eight-gunned fighters coming available. There were also some voices within the Air Ministry calling for the elimination of the Peregrine (to allow Rolls-Royce to focus on Merlin development).

Top A Hawker Harrier Mk.IVA in its final days of service with No.19 Squadron, RAF Duxford, August 1939.

Sea Legs - A Final User for the Hawker Harrier

The Harrier Mk.IV (and wireless-equipped Harrier Mk.IVA) had a comparatively short RAF service lives. By the beginning of 1939, sufficient eight-gunned Hurricanes (and Spitfires) had been delivered that the Harriers could be phased out of active service. Initial plans were that the Harriers should be passed on to fighter OTUs but this did not happen ... directly.

As war clouds darkened, the Royal Navy became increasingly concerned about both the aerial defence of its shore bases and the obsolescence of its biplane Hawker Osprey shipboard fighter aircraft. As a replacement for the Osprey, Glosters had proposed a shipboard derivative of its F.5/34 monoplane. This concept was killed by the allocation of all available Bristol Taurus radials to the twin-engined Bristol Beaufort torpedo-bombers for RAF Coastal Command. This left the RN in the untenable situation of employing its Blackburn Skua 2-seat dive-bombers as ad hoc shipboard fighters. Something had to give ... and the opportunity came from the shore base defence requirement.

As the RAF withdrew its Harrier from squadron service, officials at the Air Ministry suggested the transfer of these aircraft to the Royal Navy (representing the first steps towards returning the Fleet Air Arm to Admiralty control). With this, the transferred aircraft became Sea Harrier Mk.IIMs, Mk.IIIs, and Mk.IVs. Other than fitting some naval equipment, the Sea Harriers remained essentially the same as they had been in RAF service. The Sea Harrier Mk.IIMs were a slight exception - being refurbished Harrier Mk.Is and Mk.II/'IIAs. All would be brought roughly to Harrier Mk.IIA standards but differed in having their 'wing root' guns removed to save weight.

In the Sea Harrier Mk.IIM refurbishing and repair process, the Admiralty became aware that Glosters held stocks of Harrier components intended for the still-born Harrier Mk.V. Inquiries were made about having these airframes completed with Kestrel powerplants. The result was the Sea Harrier Mk.VI. To create acceptable landing characteristics, the engine bearers were extended. An entirely new cowling was created for this longer nose which also accommodated a new, 3-bladed DH variable-pitch propeller. These changes helped shift the centre of gravity forward ... despite the addition of RN wireless equipment, catapult dogs, and an A-frame arrestor hook. The wings were standard Harrier Mk.IV panels with no attempt made at wing-folding.

As with the RAF's Harriers, the Sea Harrier Mk.VI was never intended to be more than an interim fighter for the Fleet Air Arm. Grumman Martlets were already on order from the US and the Admiralty had a decided preference for radial-engined aircraft. Still, the Sea Harrier Mk.VI were the only moderately modern monoplane fighters available when No.803 Naval Air Squadron replaced its Osprey and Nimrod biplanes aboard HMS Ark Royal in October 1939. This transition was quite smooth because a Sea Harrier training flight had already been established at RNAS Worthy Down in Hampshire. There, FAA pilots could familiarized themselves with the Sea Harrier and practice simulated deck landings before embarking.

As planned, the Sea Harrier's shipboard career was brief. On 08 April 1940, six Mk.VIs were flown off HMS Ark Royal to land at RAF Hal Far on Malta. It was here that the Sea Harrier built its wartime reputation. These half-dozen aircraft would acquit themselves well during the initial Italian aerial onslaught against Malta. Where possible, the lighter Sea Harrier would distract Italian fighters while the RAF's heavier-armed Hurricanes tackled the Regia Aeronautica bombers. This pairing worked well. And, interestingly, the ,5-inch Vickers armament of the Sea Harrier Mk.VI was a close match to the twin 12.7 mm armament of Italian fighters of the day.

The remaining Sea Harrier Mk.VIs ended their combat careers when flown off HMS Ark Royal for use as advanced trainers in the UK. All available HMS Sea Harrier would be grouped with the OTU at RNAS Worthy Down. Training continued at this Naval Air Station until late 1942. By then, Sea Harriers which had not yet been written-off by student pilots were becoming worn-out. The Sea Harrier Mk.VIs lasted longest of all. Some, retired from the Worthy Down OTU became station hacks at various Royal Navy shore establishments. Other than a few instructional airframes, not a single Sea Harrier was listed as active by the end of 1943.

Bottom A Hawker Sea Harrier Mk.VI of the OTU, RNAS Worthy Down, September 1941. This aircraft was written-off in a failed simulated carrier landing on 31 Nov 1941. The trainee pilot, Sub-Lt RJ Eglindon, escaped this crash-landing with minor scrapes and bruisings.

(Fin)

_____________________________________

[1] Throughout its existence, the Harrier retained its 200 square foot wing area. By comparison, the early-model Messerschmitts had a wing area of just over 172 square feet. For manoeuvrability, the Bf 109B relied upon high-lift devices such as leading edge slats.

[2] It had been originally intended that the Bf 109B-1 would be armed with three MG17, including one firing through the propeller boss. The latter installation proved unreliable and was deleted for production.

[3] Gloster already had Peregrines on order for use on George Carter's twin-engined design to Air Ministry Specification F9/37.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on October 30, 2021, 06:16:31 AM
A fixed, spatted gear version, to compete with the fixed gear Curtiss Model 75 export Hawks,
would look cool.
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 31, 2021, 11:18:48 AM
Well, this one has no spats but it does have a radial engine ... ;)
__________________________________________

Interest in the Hawker Harrier was expressed by the Swedish Försvarsmakten which required a new fighter aircraft for the Flygvapnet. For almost a decade, the Swedes had operated the Bristol Bulldog Mk IIA as the Flygvapnet's J 7. Attrition had taken its toll on the J 7 fleet but the biplane was also now entirely obsolete as a fighter aircraft. Negotiations were undertaken to secure a Swedish production license for the Harrier monoplane. Glosters (through Hawkers) was to supply kits of major components for assembly by CVM - the Flygvapnet workshops at Malmslätt.

To meet Swedish requirements, Gloster prepared a pattern aircraft for delivery. To that end, the remains of the original prototype Harrier were rebuilt to take the specified radial engine - a Bristol Mercury. (For production aircraft, the powerplant would be Swedish-licensed engines - 920 hp Nohab-built Mercury XXIVs.) [1] The change in appearance was dramatic. The svelte lines of the RAF's Kestrel-powered Harrier were gone. In its place was a somewhat brutal-looking fighter where  purposefulness was valued higher than attractive lines.

The revised prototype flew with a 840 hp Bristol Mercury IX. To accommodate that radial engine, the cockpit was raised along with the upper fuselage decking. Other noticeable changes were in armament. At Swedish request, a fixed armament of four machine guns was fitted - two in the lower fuselage and two in the upper cowl, displacing the main fuel tank. These guns were all Swedish-supplied 6,5 mm Ksp m/22 FN-Brownings. An entirely new fuel tank was install below the raised pilot's seat with a second tank directly behind the cockpit. The aircraft was shipped to Sweden for trials but a Flygvapnet pilot quickly wrote-off the prototype in a crash-landing at Linköping.

Bottom The Bristol Mercury-powered Swedish 'Mercury-Harrier' as delivered. There were some issues with the factory-applied markings. First, the Swedish roundels were also meant to be applied to the underside of the wings. Second, the fin flash was an inappropriate marking (having become obsolete in May 1937). And, finally, the 'J 8' code should have been a Flygvapnet-applied indivdual aircraft number.

"Förändring är en förutsättning för utveckling ..." [2]

The pace of progress was brisk in the 1930s and the Försvarsmakten had come to see Flygvapnet plans for a Hawker fighter already dated. Revisions were in order and higher performance was demanded. Changes would be made both to specified engine type and to armament. The quartet of rifle-calibre machine guns were to be replaced with heavier-calibre weapons - the 13,2 mm akan m/39A. This gun was another FN-Browning piece, however, the Swedish guns fired Hotchkiss 13,2 x 99 mm ammunition. [3] The British engine was to be replaced by a US-made Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp.

Throughout the Summer of 1939, Glosters shipped semi-finished Harrier components by sea from Sharpness Dock to Gothenburg (Göteborgs hamn). With the outbreak of war in September 1939, Hucclecote informed the Försvarsmakten that Glosters could provide no further assistance with their revised 'Swedish Harrier' project. Realizing that the Flygvapnet's CVM was becoming overwhelmed with war work (as well as being somewhat out of its depth), the Hawker fighter project was transferred from Malmslätt to the newly-formed Kungliga Flygförvaltningens Flygverkstad i Stockholm (FFVS) under Bo Lundberg. The latter had been tasked with developing an entirely new, domestic fighter design. But that would have to wait.

Ingenjör Lundberg - who had come from Sparmanns - and his team began their new task with a survey of Gloster-supplied parts. This this, the teams' design for cowling the Pratt & Whitney engine was adapted. [4] The closely-cowled 'Tvillinggeting' (Twin Wasp) was less 'draggy' (having a diameter 3.5 inches less than the original Bristol Mercury. However, the R-1830 also weighed almost 300 lbs more than the single-row Mercury. To address airframe c/g, the engine bearers were shortened but it was concluded that balance would only be established by lengthening the fuselage. That was accomplished through the simple expedient of moving the vertical tailplane aft.

By the time that the first FFVS J8 was flown at Bromma - there was no prototype as such - the world had changed utterly. The German Luftwaffe was now based on Sweden's borders with Denmark and Norway. Finland had fought its Vinterkrig with the Soviet Union. Never had Swedes felt so vulnerable to outside aggression. That urgency was transferred to the Interimistiska jaktplansprogram (IJP) as the revised Harrier programme had been dubbed. The result was the FFVS J 8A armed with four 8 mm Ksp m/22 machine guns - these rifle-calibre weapons being immediately available for installation. [5]

In May 1940, J8As began to equip the fighter units of the newly-formed Skånska Flygflottiljen (F 10) based at Bulltofta near Malmö. For the most part, flights were dispersed to more remote flygbaser like Rinkaby. There, in the south, sovereignty patrols were the order of the day. Of the 18 FFVS J 8s completed, eight were J 8As, the remainder J 8Bs. All served with F 10 until displaced by domestically-designed FFVS J 22 fighters. The 14 survivors were then refurbished and rebuilt as J 8Cs - with a reduced armament of two 13,2 mm guns. Thence, the J 8Cs were re-assigned north with a new recce-fighter flygeskadern of Norrbottens flygflottilj (F 21). Northern operating conditions were harsh and, by May 1945, only six J 8Cs remained airworthy at Luleå.

Top FFVS J 8B of F10. Note extended fuselage and Swedish-design wooden tail fin. The enlarged, retractable tailwheel was also a local development.

__________________________________________

[1] The Nohab Mercury XXIV - aka My S3 - was then entering production for ASJA-built Northrop B 5B light bombers.

[2] "Change is a prerequisite for development ..."

[3] The heavier-calibre FN-Browning gun was similar to those mounted in Belgian Harriers. However, having no access to Avions Fairey, the FFVS team had to devise their own design of gun mounts.

[4] These Twin Wasps were not the SFA STWC-3G 'Tvillinggeting' later built without a license. Rather, these engines were all ex-French 'war prize' booty purchased from Germany.

[5] It would not be until early 1941 that J 8Bs armed with the planned 13,2 mm FN-Brownings began arriving at combat squadrons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 31, 2021, 11:37:30 AM
The "Mercury Harrier" looks like a monoplane Gladiator. ;) :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 01, 2021, 01:07:51 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on November 01, 2021, 04:43:40 AM
Been a great ride through this lot.
Nicely done
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 05, 2021, 04:38:51 AM
Starting a new story ...

Origins of the RCAF CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport ...

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg190516#new
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 12, 2021, 07:23:17 AM
Latest installment in the Re: CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport Aircraft story:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg190739#msg190739
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 12, 2021, 10:29:35 AM
In the New Model Kit News/Reviews section, Greg posted art for the new Mikro-Mir 1/144th Myasishchev 3MD box top. ChernayaAkula then mentioned SAC but, for some reason, I saw RAF V-Bomber ...

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=5097.msg190582#new

So, here is the sole V-class Boulton Paul Birmingham B.I prototype in flight, The Birmingham is overflying Osea Island in Essex while demonstrating a simulated low-level attack profile.

The Birmingham prototype sprang from Boulton Paul's 'Project Wulfrun' for a jet-powered strategic bomber powered by four Armstrong Siddeley ASSa.2 Sapphire turbojets. Boulton Paul chief designer JD North envisioned his concept satisfying both V-Bomber and long-range reconnaissance requirements.

As built, the Birmingham B.I prototype was fitted with much more powerful ASSa.7 Sapphires. The Birmingham was a 'back-up to a back-up' - the more conservative Short Sperrin. The BP design was never ordered as an operational V-Bomber unlike the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor, and Vickers Valiant. A serious engine-fire in the Birmingham's No.3 ASSa.7 permanently grounded the prototype at RAF Honington, Suffolk. Never used as a bomber, the prototype Birmingham B.I served as an instructional airframe for many years at Honington.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 12, 2021, 11:09:11 PM
It has a bit of a Sperrin look to it, doesn't it ----
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 13, 2021, 01:46:06 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 13, 2021, 04:59:01 AM
It has a bit of a Sperrin look to it, doesn't it ----

I think that's mainly because I've stuck the V-Bombers' H2S Mk. IX and AN/APN/170 radomes onto the nose of the Myasishchev. The original Soviet radomes were too svelte-looking (and where I've shown the forward-looking antenna is actually an inflight refuelling probe on the 3MD).

To my eye, the whif Birmingham is more like 'what if a B-47 had been designed in Britain?'. I guess that's mainly the swept wings and tail. But, the 3MD was quite a bit bigger than the Sperrin. Still, that engine installation reminds me of the other V-Bombers.

That said, I did cheat with the engines. Probably the PS.23 Gyron or B.E.10 Olympus would've been more realistic ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 15, 2021, 04:24:56 AM
 :smiley:

Quote
To my eye, the whif Birmingham is more like 'what if a B-47 had been designed in Britain?'

It was a great try, unfortunately by the time development and testing was done and it finally entered
service in 1971 it was extremely obsolete.

 ;) :icon_fsm:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 15, 2021, 11:14:37 AM
It was a great try, unfortunately by the time development and testing was done and it finally entered service in 1971 it was extremely obsolete.

 ;D ;D

Recently, ysi_maniac had a go at the WWI Saint-Chamond. Here's my go at it ...
___________________________________________

In 1915, the Compagnie des forges et aciéries de la marine et d'Homécourt (FAMH) at Saint-Chamond, Loire, was invited to design an armoured fighting vehicle for use by the French Army. At the insistence of général Léon Mourret, the new vehicle was to be armed with a 75 mm field gun. This feature alone dictated a rather larger vehicle than the rival Schneider CA1 designed by Eugène Brillié. The Saint-Chamond design would also be distinct because Brillié, refused the free use of his patents. As a result, Saint-Chamond had to come up with substitutes for the Brillié skid 'tail' and other patented features.

In the initial draught of the Saint-Chamond armoured vehicle, FAMH design chief colonel Émile Rimailho chose his Canon de 75 modèle 1915 Saint-Chamond - the so-called Saint Chamond-Mondragón. This piece fired the same fixed 75x350 mm R ammunition as the 75mm Mle 1897 (also designed by col. Rimailho). However, the Mle 1915 had a shorter barrel and was correspondingly lighter. Unfortunately, like all French field guns, the entire carriage was required for traverse. This made the 1915 Saint-Chamond concept a lengthy vehicle with substantial overhangs fore and aft. The drivetrain consisted of a 90 hp Panhard et Levassor 4-cylinder engine with final drive via a Crochat-Colardeau electric transmission. A crew of eight was to be carried. This initial design was rejected by gén. Mourret.

1916 Saint-Chamond char d'assaut - the CA2

Other than in retaining a general arrangement and engine type, the 1916 Saint-Chamond vehicle design had little in common with its predecessor. The track layout was effectively reversed - with the drive wheels at the front. The electric drive was replaced by a conventional Panhard gearbox - set directly below the main gun mounting beam. That gun was revised as the Mle 1916 intended specifically for vehicle use. The original L/28.5 barrel was replaced by a new 2.58 m 'tube' - the same L/36 length as the preferred Mle 1895. The piece sat in an entirely new mount saddle and pivot - obviating the need to retain the entire trail. As a result, overall vehicle length could be reduced while traverse was made easier and quicker.

Reducing the overall length, also made for a smaller fighting compartment. The crew was reduced to five - the commander/driver, gunner, loader, and two machine gunners/mechanics. This design was accepted for production as the Saint-Chamond char d'assaut. From the outset, it was clear that the new Saint-Chamond char d'assaut outclassed the earlier Schneider CA1. The Saint-Chamond vehicle was also more heavily armed than contemporary British tanks. However, the longer British Tank, Mark I proved superior at trench-crossing. As a work-round, some Saint-Chamonds were fitted with 'tails' similar to those of British tanks. On Saint-Chamonds, these 'cordier' took the form of a non-steering twin-wheeled carriage with a set degree of pivot. Intended to allow the 20 tonne vehicle to cross trenches, 'le cordier' were more likely to fail under the strain. Most tailpieces were removed by the end of 1917.

1917 Saint-Chamond char d'assaut - the CA2b

Many of the failings of the modèle 1916 Saint-Chamond CA2 were addressed in a major redesign - the modèle 1917 CA2b. This vehicle had a revised (and enclosed) suspension as well as broader track pads. The upper hull was simplified with protection increased to a maximum of 26 mm of armour plate - this was mainly to stop German 'reversed bullets' (while anticipated German armour-piercing 'K bullets'). The forward plate was given an increased slope which also helped to deflect bullets and shell splinters. Main armament remained the same 75 mm Saint-Chamond TR (Tir Rapide) Mle 1916 but the machine gun armament was reduced. [1] The forward-firing remote Hotchkiss was retained but the twin rear guns were replaced by a single 8 mm in a simplified mouting. As a result, the crew could be reduced to four - although a dedicated mechanic was often carried.

To improve trench-crossing the inadequate 'cordier' was replaced by un tambour. This revolving drum served to extend the vehicle's length of ground contact. The angle of le tambour could be adjusted prior to missions to best suit anticipated surface conditions. In most aspects, the Mle 1916 CA2b was an improvement over the Mle 1915 Saint-Chamond. A questionable change was the supression of the driver's vision port into the hull proper. Removing this excrescence reduced vulnerability to shellfire but also greatly reduced the driver's field of vision. As a char d'assaut, the Saint-Chamond CA2b was regarded as a success - especially as a late-war counter-battery weapon. However, with the end of "La Grande Guerre, the French Army quickly disposed of its Saint-Chamond tanks.

_____________________________________

[1] It was assumed that each Saint-Chamond char d'assaut CA2b would be accompanied by Renault FT light tanks with machine gun-armed turrets.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on November 15, 2021, 11:45:43 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on November 15, 2021, 03:07:36 PM
 :smiley: I like your St Chamond  :icon_alabanza:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on November 15, 2021, 10:19:52 PM
If it had a bulldozer blade at the front it would be an ideal combat engineer vehicle.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 16, 2021, 02:03:04 AM
Screams APC variant to me...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 19, 2021, 09:11:31 AM
Thanks folks!  :D

If it had a bulldozer blade at the front it would be an ideal combat engineer vehicle.  :smiley:

Ooo, a CEV ... or, rather, un véhicule du génie de combat for the 1919 offensive. I like it  :smiley:

It seems that the bulldozer wasn't invented until 1923 (by LaPlant-Choate in the US) so I've made mine a fascine-carrier (transporteur blindés de fascines) instead.

This 'TBF' is rigged for transport. For deployment of fascines, chain tethers would be rearranged to drag and drop each fascine either fore or aft. The original scheme to deploy one large fascine and two small 'fillers' was abandoned when the Germans began digging wider trenches.

Screams APC variant to me...

I like that one too! Here, I've extended the Mle 1917 track system and Brillié has finally been compelled to allow use of his rear skid patent. The latter makes a handy platform for dismounting troops egressing through the  rear doors.

_____________________________


And there's the next installment in the CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport Aircraft story:

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg190901#msg190901
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on November 19, 2021, 11:31:18 AM
I've always found it hilarious that engineers are often called "génie" in French (and in some other languages, as well)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 21, 2021, 06:08:56 AM
Next installment in the CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport Aircraft[/b] story ...

Northern Patrol - Canadair's NorPat/Maritime Patrol DC-8
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg191066#msg191066
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on November 21, 2021, 05:53:22 PM
I quite like those!

The nose of the DC-8 looks like it could be rigged out for EW tasks as well.

Maybe some special version for 414 Squadron to play with. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on November 21, 2021, 06:07:49 PM
I quite like those!

The nose of the DC-8 looks like it could be rigged out for EW tasks as well.

Maybe some special version for 414 Squadron to play with. ;)

Seconded !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Buzzbomb on November 22, 2021, 06:55:31 AM
The St Chamond Engineering Tank got me thinking about using a Matilda hull, with a similar boxy superstructure.

The base vehicle was reliable enough, weight might be a problem though and it is somewhat narrow
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 23, 2021, 07:17:34 AM
Thanks folks!

I like the EW idea. The next installment reveals the updated CP-140M Arcturus patrol aircraft. Part of that update involved the replacing of the 'recycled' CP-107 sensors and avionics with CP-143 Orion kit.

For reasons of economy, the ASV 21 nose radome was retained on the CP-188M despite Raytheon's AN/APS-137 antenna being quite a bit smaller. So, plenty of room in that schnozz for EW emitters. In fact, this was a big airplane, plenty of room everywhere for EW kit

______________________________

The final installment in the CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport Aircraft story:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg191139#msg191139
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 23, 2021, 07:19:03 AM
The St Chamond Engineering Tank got me thinking about using a Matilda hull, with a similar boxy superstructure.

The base vehicle was reliable enough, weight might be a problem though and it is somewhat narrow

I like the idea of a Matilda CEV. As you say, weight could be an issue but I'm not sure that the narrow hull would be a big problem for most combat engineering applications.

The Australian Matilda Dozer provides a model (if you want to fit a blade). Apparently, there were 18 RW Matilda Dozer - 12 with cable-operated blades and six with hydraulic cylinders.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 23, 2021, 09:46:04 PM
Thanks folks!

I like the EW idea. The next installment reveals the updated CP-140M Arcturus patrol aircraft. Part of that update involved the replacing of the 'recycled' CP-107 sensors and avionics with CP-143 Orion kit.

For reasons of economy, the ASV 21 nose radome was retained on the CP-188M despite Raytheon's AN/APS-137 antenna being quite a bit smaller. So, plenty of room in that schnozz for EW emitters. In fact, this was a big airplane, plenty of room everywhere for EW kit

______________________________

The final installment in the CC-188 Polaris Strategic Transport Aircraft story:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg191139#msg191139

Hmm! interesting !  This will be a CE-150 (T) when it's finished  (erm! forget the date on the pic, the camera had switched the settings somehow. It was taken about a year ago)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 25, 2021, 06:28:27 AM
Hmm! interesting !  This will be a CE-150 (T) when it's finished  ...

Very cool Robert! That front radome seems to fit your Polaris' nose profile very well  :smiley:

And 'interesting' indeed ... because, oddly, I was just working on a FASS application as a tack-on to my Canadair DC-8 story!

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10044.msg191216#msg191216
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 25, 2021, 10:51:21 PM
That DC-8 AEW looks very cool too --- you can buy a 1/72 DC-8 too --- hmm!

The aircraft I'm building a model of is a BAe 844, this concept appeared in various aviation magazines around 1984 in a Marconi advert, I have a copy of the 1984 RAF Year Book which if anyone is interested, has a big article on the Nimrod AEW plus an excellent cutaway drawing in it. The front cover has the Nimrod AEW on it too.

Middle pic is where I cut out the BAe 844 so I could scale it to match a 1/72 3-View I have of an Airbus A310 in an AutoCad drawing. I'm also going to build one of the Canadair Challengers I have with some FASS domes, as you can see in the advert.

The domes are one of Harro's (Hobbes on the forums) creations which you can buy off Shapeways, he calls himself Acme Engineering there.
I have the Cammett Nimrod FASS AEW conversion set too, for one of the Airfix Nimrod kits I have.

The BAe 844 you see in the advert is a bit out of scale with the other concepts I think, the A310 is a bit bigger than an A400M, you can see a comparison in the bottom photo
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on November 25, 2021, 11:36:39 PM
I've always like the alternative option of the DC-8 as a basis for an AWACS (like the E-3 Sentry) because I've always thought the DC-8 looked sleeker than the 707. It looks especially good with the CFM56. Great profile!

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 26, 2021, 10:56:48 AM
...The aircraft I'm building a model of is a BAe 844, this concept appeared in various aviation magazines around 1984 in a Marconi advert...

And, of course, Revell does the C-160 Transall in 1/72nd as well  :smiley:

Actually, you could do the entire brochure in 1/72 - although that would mean a hen's teeth Aeroclub C-23A Sherpa for the Shorts 330  :o

I've always like the alternative option of the DC-8 as a basis for an AWACS (like the E-3 Sentry) because I've always thought the DC-8 looked sleeker than the 707. It looks especially good with the CFM56. Great profile!

Thanks Logan! I grew up on the DC-8s (so bias duly acknowledged) but I'm with you on their sleeker looks. I always thought that the DC-8 also had an honest, 'doggy' nose - not a turned up Boeing snout! And I couldn't resist the CFM56s on a short-bodied DC-8  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 26, 2021, 11:00:45 AM
Upnorth is running a story on the Aermacchi MB-326 in Canadian service (instead of the Canadair CL-41 Tutor). [1] That brings in all sorts of interesting questions and possibilities. But I got hung up on who would make these license-built trainers if Canadair was the competition?

For my take on this Aermacchi, I decided to start a new company. So, whif, a group of Italian-Canadian investors band together to give Aermacchi a local presence during the RCAF trainer competition. The former Cub Aircraft of Canada hangar at the underutilized Hamilton International Airport is leased with plans to build modern assembly sheds once the trainer contract was secured. In the interim, Aermacchi bases its Canadian operations out of YHM.

Although submitted as the Aermacchi MB-326, the newly-formed Arrow Aircraft Company [2] dubbed the Canadian assembled trainers as AAC-326Cs. Once adopted for service, the RCAF designated the Aermacchi trainer as the Arrow CT-132 Astre. [3] The first prototype was assembled from Aermacchi-supplied major sub-components. Production CT-132 Astre would be more fully produced in Hamilton with only a handful of parts imported from Italy.

Top First prototype CT-132 Astre (RCAF s/n 10843). This aircraft was briefly returned to Arrow Aircraft for publicity work - hence the bogus '326' serials (applied for photography purposes).

Bottom The sole CT-132R 'Radar Astre' fitted with the NASARR R-24A radar from the CF-104 Starfighter. The CT-132R was seen as superior to the aged Douglas CT-129 Dakota transport fitted with the same radar set. In the end, however, it was decided that the CT-129 'Pinocchio' added extra flexibility by carrying multiple radar-operator pupils simultaneously.

________________________________

[1] Jackrabbit https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9948.0

[2] The chosen name was highly political. The out-going government was infamous for cancelling the CF-105 Arrow interceptor. The corporate name allowed the in-coming government to rub the new Official Oppositions' noses in the Arrow débâcle without all the expense of reviving Avro Canada.

[3] The RCAF chose the French-language name Astre was chosen for its 'star' association with the in-service CT-133 Silver Star (since étoile was thought to be more difficult for Anglophones to pronounce).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 26, 2021, 10:48:49 PM

Actually, you could do the entire brochure in 1/72 - although that would mean a hen's teeth Aeroclub C-23A Sherpa for the Shorts 330  :o


You mean this kit    ;)

My plan is to build what's on the brochure Stephen ---   :smiley:  I've actually got all the kits to do it too ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 26, 2021, 11:04:02 PM

Actually, you could do the entire brochure in 1/72 - although that would mean a hen's teeth Aeroclub C-23A Sherpa for the Shorts 330  :o


I've got a few others planned too, I bought some FASS domes from Harro to do the Challenger, but I got the scale wrong and they turned out too small. But they fit perfectly for a Dominie --- plans are already in progress to build one.

And the dome arrangement shown for the Sherpa and Puma (?) has led me to this.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 28, 2021, 05:48:56 AM
You mean this kit    ;)

My plan is to build what's on the brochure Stephen ---   :smiley:  I've actually got all the kits to do it too ---

That's the one! And looking forward to seeing the built collection  :smiley:

Going back to jet trainers ... Upnorth's story had the RCAF wearying of unspecified technical flaws with the Canadair CL-41. It struck me that a simpler backstory would be an RCAF flip-flop on tandem versus side-by-side seating preferences for its primary jet trainer.

Of course, if it went that way, Canadair may well have developed a tandem-seat Tutor. So that got me wondering how such a 'Tandem Tutor' might appear. Well ... not much of a looker as it turns out  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 28, 2021, 05:54:00 AM
That's the one! And looking forward to seeing the built collection  :smiley:

Yeah! me too --- just need to get my butt in gear ---  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 28, 2021, 06:06:13 AM
... and Puma (?) ...

Question mark indeed! The helicopter drawing in that brochure is dreadful but - based on engine position alone - I'm wondering if that was supposed to represent an EH101  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 28, 2021, 06:33:30 AM
... and Puma (?) ...

Question mark indeed! The helicopter drawing in that brochure is dreadful but - based on engine position alone - I'm wondering if that was supposed to represent an EH101  ???

I was wondering the same, but looking at photos and 3-views, it doesn't look like either. I'll take a browse through the helicopter trilogy of Chris Gibson's tonight and see if there's anything there. Thing is, Puma and Super Puma were flying in 1984 (same as all the other aircraft shown), EH-101 was years away from first flight (first in 1987)

EDIT:  what it looks like is a NH-90 ---
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 28, 2021, 06:44:20 AM
You mean this kit    ;)

My plan is to build what's on the brochure Stephen ---   :smiley:  I've actually got all the kits to do it too ---

That's the one! And looking forward to seeing the built collection  :smiley:

Going back to jet trainers ... Upnorth's story had the RCAF wearying of unspecified technical flaws with the Canadair CL-41. It struck me that a simpler backstory would be an RCAF flip-flop on tandem versus side-by-side seating preferences for its primary jet trainer.

Of course, if it went that way, Canadair may well have developed a tandem-seat Tutor. So that got me wondering how such a 'Tandem Tutor' might appear. Well ... not much of a looker as it turns out  :P

What about using the "long nose" of the proposed CL-41T dedicated ground attack version?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 28, 2021, 11:26:56 AM
What about using the "long nose" of the proposed CL-41T dedicated ground attack version?

That's an interesting idea Jon! Since the entire CL-41T nose 'drooped' down, you could do more modern, stepped seating in the 'tandem'  :smiley:

Robert: A more contemporary candidate might be the unbuilt Westland WG31 (albeit with shortened sponsons)?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on November 28, 2021, 09:50:35 PM
Yes, I see what you mean there --- but the brochure basically shows aircraft that were 'flying' at the time and converted. Seems odd to add in something that wasn't even in the built category.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on November 28, 2021, 10:44:40 PM
Those are some cool Macchi profiles!

I've been distracted from further work on the story due to some real world stuff. Hopefully I'll get back to it before too long.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 30, 2021, 08:20:09 AM
kitnut617: Okay, so Occam's Razor says the winner is ... World's-Worst-Puma-Drawing  ;D

upnorth: Cheers! Looking forward to seeing where your story goes  :smiley:

-------------

So, this one is a bit off the wall but the concept was prompted by Greg's Australian Combined Arms Capability in Interwar Period scenario:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10079.msg191295#new

My image is a what-if Australia had taken up the easy-to-build US 'Skeleton Tank' - a prototype of which was produced during WWI by the Pioneer Tractor Co. of Winona, Minnesota.

Part of Greg's scenario involves armoured forces with the Medium Mk V and the Medium Mk A Whippet mentioned amongst other tank types. For its time, the Whippet was fast [1] and had four machine guns. Problem was, only two of those Hotchkiss guns could be fired at any given time - the guns having limited fields of fire and there being only two crew members to fire them. (A rotating turret had been part of the original concept but this was later abandoned for simpler flexible gun mounts). A bigger problem was that the 16-foot long Whippet was incapable of crossing wider, late-war German trenches.

The innovative (or just bizarre?) 'Skeleton Tank' got around both problems. Being 25 feet long, [1] the 'Skeleton Tank' had the track length to cross late-war trenches. And being much lighter than the British rhomboid tanks, the 'Skeleton Tank' would be less likely to collapse the sides of that trench. The US tank also had a 360° traversing machine gun turret. Best of all, only the most vulnerable parts of the 'Skeleton Tank' were heavily plated - the engines and crew compartment. Those were situated in an armoured 'box' suspended between the tracks and several feet off the ground.

As mentioned, much of the vehicle was 'open'. The track frames having no centres and being connected to that armoured crew compartment 'box' by a fretwork of struts. Each of those struts was a length of threaded 3-inch water pipe joined together with standard plumbing fittings. By only armouring essential areas, the 25 foot 'Skeleton Tank' weighed little more than the 16 foot Renault FT 2-man light tank - about 8 short tons vs 7.2 short tons. (For comparison, the 20 foot-long Whippet weighed 15.68 short tons.) Being of circular section, those steel water pipes were also capable of deflecting glancing impacts by bullets and shell fragments. Perhaps less well appreciated at the time would have been the vehicle's potential resistance to the blast effects of nearby shell bursts.

I have named my Australian what-if the 'Monash Medium'. A few changes from the original 'Skeleton Tank' are obvious. First, I faceted the crew compartment to further enhance blast resistance. Second, I have replaced the cylindrical American turret with a cast turret - a later type (fitted to some Renault FTs) to be imported from France. [1] Athough not detailed here, I'd imagine some 'Anglicisation' of equipment as well - perhaps using more powerful British-made engines instead of American to boost top speed? Possibly substituting the superior tracks from the Whippet? Otherwise, this Aussie Spider Tank would be unchanged from the Pioneer Tractor original.

_____________________________

[1] The French turret is shown here rotated to the rear. (The white-painted top is a recognition mark ... which also served to lower interior temperatures.) Turret armament is a single 0.303-inch Hotchkiss Mk.I (with another Hotchkiss mounted in the hull to be forward-fired remotely by the driver).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on November 30, 2021, 02:19:09 PM
Reading the description of the Skeleton it states it had two "50hp Beaver 4-cylinder engines".
Doing some digging I came up with this on a site about "Milwaukee Gasolene Locomotives", the kind
of machinery used in mines etc.
H-6 a 50 HP, 6 ton locomotive, using a Beaver model JE, 4.75x6" 4 cylinder engine.
The Beaver JE displacement comes out to slightly over 425 in3.
The 1910 Mercer 30 was powered by a 30hp 285 in3 Beaver 4-cyl.
(https://www.conceptcarz.com/images/Mercer/10_Mercer_Speedster_DV-12-PBC-e001.jpg)

Evidently Beaver was a successful early manufacturer with most of their engines being used in
in the truck, rail, marine etc. businesses after a short stint in passenger cars.

The Tylor JB.4 engines in the Whippet were 45 hp 7.72 liter (463 in3).
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/C1DWEHx.jpg)

Towards the end of the war the Harry Ricardo designed 105hp alloy six-cylinder started coming on line, but I don't
think it would really be an option in post-WWI Australia, ditto the Armstrong-Siddeley V-8 etc. Some sort of truck
or industrial engine would probably be more likely.

A.E.C. seem to have been dominant in Australia in period and, drum-roll, was a user of Tylor engines, the most
common one being the JB.4 which was produced in the thousands of units, and which, as we've seen, was used
in the Whippet A.

Later in the 1920s Tylor produced the Tiger which was designed as a drop-in replacement for the JB.4, it
was very conservatively rated at 40hp by the RAC , it was actually measured at 76.5hp at 1,650 rpm on a
dynamometer, highest attained by the old JB.4 was 60.05hp. Torque also increased.
https://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/16th-november-1926/50/an-interesting-proprietary-engine (https://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/16th-november-1926/50/an-interesting-proprietary-engine)

Monash Medium originally built with Tylor JB.4, as per the Whippet A, in place of the US Beaver engines.
It was later re-engined with Tylor Tiger engines.  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 03, 2021, 12:08:22 PM
...
Monash Medium originally built with Tylor JB.4, as per the Whippet A, in place of the US Beaver engines.
It was later re-engined with Tylor Tiger engines.  ;)

Great stuff! Thanks Jon  :smiley:

Here is another thought on Greg's Australian Combined Arms Capability in Interwar Period scenario:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10079.msg191295#new

____________________________________________

As part of the Imperial Gift, Australia received 31 x Airco DH.9A and 28 x Airco DH.9s. The Liberty-powered DH.9As were excellent light day bombers. But Puma-engined DH.9s were seriously underpowered. As a result, many DH.9 airframes went straight into long-term storage at No. 1 Aircraft Depot (1 AD) at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria. By contrast, the DH.9As served the new RAAF well until 1925-26 when they were due for reconditioning and updating.

Most RAAF DH.9A airframes were rotated through a refurbishment programme by various civilian contractors. Some equipment updates were made but, other than extra cowling ventilation for improved engine cooling and the fitting of Handley Page wing slats to improve low-speed handling, few other changes were thought necessary. To speed these DH.9A rebuilds (and reduced their costs), stored DH.9 airframes were often raided for suitable parts and components.

Bottom RAAF Airco DH.9A A1-17 (ex-F2779), C Flight, 1 Squadron, RAAF, Point Cook, Victoria, late 1926. This aircraft carries a Hythe Mk.III gun camera on its Scarff ring mount. The unofficial Flight Lieutenant pennant shows A1-17 to be the mount of 1 Sqn C/O Flt Lt Harry Cobby, DFC, DSO.

DH.9A A1-17 would have just been returned from reconditioning by Pratt Bros. at Geelong. [1] Obvious upgrades are the Handley Page wing slots, Mort's Dock [2] cowling with extra ventilation, and Matthews & Hassell [3] auxiliary radiator beneath the engine.

A Local Mod - the Airco DHA.9 Dingo

Along with being robbed for parts, most of the stored DH.9s had lost their engines. [4] That proved a blessing in disguise. Beginning in 1929, the stored airframes were reconditioned and rebuilt in a very different form. The concept for what emerged as the DHA.9 Dingo rebuild originated with Flt Lt AW 'Spud' Murphy at the RAAF Experimental Section (under the tutelage of Wg Cdr Lawrence Wackett). The inadequate Puma engines were replaced by more powerful Bristol Jupiter radials. To further improve to speeds, the lower wings were 'bobbed' creating a sesquiplane configuration. Perhaps invariably, the 'new' DHA.9 Dingo was dubbed the 'Nine-Bob'.

Top RAAF Airco DHA.9 Dingo A6-28 (ex-C6323, combined with parts from A6-8 ex-F1295) in late August 1930. This aircraft served with the RAAF's first ground-attack unit - the newly-reformed 6 Squadron based at Richmond, NSW. Note the revised forward fuselage, new 'spung' main undercarriage, and absense of HP wing slats on the DHA.9.

__________________________

[1] Properly the Aircraft Manufacturing Supply Company of Australia, the Pratts were proprietors of the Belmont Common aerodrome at Geelong.

[2] In full, Mort's Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. of Balmain (Sydney), New South Wales.

[3] Matthews & Hassell Engineering Co. Ltd. based at Essendon aerodrome (Melbourne), Victoria

[4] The Siddeley Puma 6-cylinder engines were repurposed by the Victorian Railways (VR) for use on fast petrol-engined trains for their non-electrified suburban routes. A variation on these Puma-powered 'Red Rocket' trains were also adopted for some New South Wales Government Railways routes - the NSWGR interurbans having their own distinctive bodywork.

BTW: These sideviews are based on Ronny Bar's Wingnut Wings DH.9A profile.
__________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 04, 2021, 01:00:39 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 12, 2021, 05:57:03 AM
Another one sparked by Greg's Australian Combined Arms Capability in Interwar Period scenario:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10079.msg191295#new

I wanted something a bit different from a straight Rolls-Royce armoured car. So, here is the half-tracked Holden-Kégresse armoured car of 1932.

The Holden-Kégresse was a rebuild of worn-out, WWI-vintage Rolls-Royce armoured cars (akin to 're-chassising' of RAF cars in Iraq). Armour plating from those vehicles was adapted for a Holden-modified GMC 1/2-ton truck frame. [1] The prototype conversion used GMC 'dualies' in the rear axle. Later, when Holden demonstrated a Chevrolet truck fitted with French Kégresse tracks, it was decided to combine that configuration on the 'new' Holden-Kégresse half-tracked armoured car.

Power was provided by a 60 hp 194 cubic-inch GMC 'Stovebolt Six' engine. With 20 hp less than the original Rolls 6-cylinder and 'rubber band' tracks, the Holden-Kégresse was no 'speed demon'. That modest performance and its bobbed tail appearance are probably the origins of the Holden-Kégresse's nickname - 'Shingleback'.

Further development resulted in body modifications to better-suit Australian operating conditions. Sliding armour panels were cut into either side of the body to reduce interior temperatures for the driver. The turrets had their roof removed, again with the object of reducing dangerously-high interior temperatures. Later the turret were modified to Mk.II standard with higher armour plating riveted on.

Shown here is a Holden-Kégresse Armoured Car Mk.II - markings revealing it to be Car No.18 of the 1st/21st Light Horse Regiment. The main turret armament is a .303-inch Vickers but a Lewis Gun with higher elevation has been added for air defence.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 13, 2021, 12:46:25 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 13, 2021, 11:02:58 AM
A bit of futuristic silliness ...

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10104.msg191828#msg191828
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on December 14, 2021, 01:45:45 PM
A bit of futuristic silliness ...

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10104.msg191828#msg191828

A modification of the Hammerhead fighters from the "Space Above and Beyond" show if I'm not mistaken.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on December 18, 2021, 01:33:26 AM
I hope the Arrow Astres didn't rust out as quickly as the Pontiac product of the same name!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2021, 10:24:42 AM
I hope the Arrow Astres didn't rust out as quickly as the Pontiac product of the same name!

 ;D  Fortunately, Arrow got it right ... aluminum body, steel engine  ;)

Back in the day, the neighbour of a friend lucked out on a complete recall for their hated Chevy Vega. Flush with cash, said neighbour rushed out and bought a brand-new Pontiac Astre. Go figure!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on December 19, 2021, 07:04:35 AM
Oooof...  ;D though I actually have liked the look of the Astre since I was a kid.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 17, 2022, 06:13:46 AM
Spinning off from Greg's Jagdverband 44 (JV 44) escapes to Switzerland at end of WWII ...

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10156.msg192952#msg192952

By 02 May 1945, Heinz Bär was under extreme pressure from Luftwaffe brass to relocated Jagdverband 44 to Prague (where JV 44 was to be redesignated IV./JG 7 to continue the fight). But the collapse was nearly complete and Oberstleutnant Bär knew it. Bär was being loyal to the creator of JV 44, Generalleutnant Adolf Galland (who was even then attempting to negotiate his unit's surrender to the Americans from his hospital bed). During the evening, Bär made his decision - he would feign agreement with the move to Prague. But, in the morning, willing JV44 personnel would instead fly into exile in Switzerland.

In its last act as Jagdverband 44, almost all serviceable aircraft took off from Salzburg-Maxglan before the sun rose on 03 May. Forming up over western Austria, the pilots then wheeled westward. Just after dawn, wing-waggling JV 44 aircraft with undercarriages down and landing lights turned on began their approaches to Militärflugplatz Mollis, less than 50 km from the Reich's border. Swiss authorities were caught completely off guard. But it took Swiss air force planners at Dübendorf little time to realize that, with this technological windfall, their country was about to enter the jet age!

After disarming, inspecting, and refueling the Me 262s, these jet fighters were transferred to the longer airstrip at Militärflugplatz Emmen - 75 km to the west. There, 'Heino' Bär and his staff pledge the oaths of Swiss citizenship. Then, with the Swiss rank of Oberst, Bär oversaw the official formation of Fliegerkompanie 22 in early September 1945. Switzerland's first jet fighters were operational. But Swiss authorities were less certain as to what to do with these jets' former Platzschutzschwarm. The Swiss had decided that the former German unit should be separated by aircraft type to better maintain control.

To that end, the former JV 44 Focke Wulf Fw-190Ds remained at Militärflugplatz Mollis where they were assigned to Fliegerkompanie 20 (alongside D-3801 Moranes). The 'Dora Staffel' remained under the command of Heinz Sachsenberg (now raised to the Swiss rank of Major). Through the Summer of 1945, the Fw 190Ds were refurbished and stripped of their camouflage and German markings. In the Swiss scheme of all-over aluminized paint with black anti-glare panels, the restored 'Doras' entered full operational service with the Schweizer Luftwaffe on 01 September 1945.

(Top) Mjr Sachsenberg's J-913 of Fl Kp 20 at Mollis, November 1945. As shown, this 'Dora' briefly wore Sachsenberg's personal colours on its spinner (later repainted entirely in Swiss red). As C/O, Sachsenberg was entitled to wear the Fl Kp 20 badge on his aircraft's fin.

At this stage, Swiss underwing markings were squares not circles. Note that this aircraft also has a black panel along the fuselage to camouflage exhaust staining.

(Bottom) J-919 of Fl St 20 in late 1948. [1] The fighter is seen in exercise colours (red fuselage band) while visiting Militärflugplatz Emmen. National markings have now changes to circular roundels but bold ID flashes are worn on the starboard wings. Fl St 20 cowling and spinner colours (red and white) have also now been standardized.

This aircraft lost power on take-off from Militärflugplatz Mollis in February 1949, with no way to safely return to Mollis and no alternate landing ground, Hptm Klaus Faber ditched the stricken fighter in the Walensee. The wreckage of J-919 was recovered but, ultimately, would be broken up for spares.

____________________________________

[1] The Fliegerkompanies became Fliegerstaffels in 1948. Prior to the Focke Wulfs, Fl Kp 20 had flown D-3800 Moranes.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 18, 2022, 01:04:50 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ysi_maniac on January 24, 2022, 11:39:52 AM
Me too!
:smiley: :smiley: :-* :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Geist on January 30, 2022, 08:23:40 AM
 :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2022, 07:10:27 AM
This was prompted by one of those vague, whiffy notions of 'Hey! What would a [blank] look like with [blank feature] added on?' Lame, I know. But I really wanted to see a Polish 7TP on a Czech suspension.

Once I got rolling, I was also wondering about a light tank-based tank destroyer (instead of faffing about with tankette TDs). So, I've done both variants and cobbled together a backstory of sorts ...

________________________________________


The 8TP (8-Tonowy Polsky) was an early-model 7TP jw tank rebuilt with running gear based on the Czechoslovak THN-S light tank. Other than adopting the 'dk' ('Big Wheel') suspension, the initial 8TP model was largely unchanged from the 7TP roots of its 'donor' hull.

Top An 8TP of 1 bczl (Batalion czołgów lekkich), commanded by the head of 1 kompanii, kpt. Antoni Sikorski. At Odrzywo, 1 pluton 1 kompanii attacked a column of German tanks, destroying three panzers. However, in that exchange, this 8TP was also lost along with its commander.

Like all 8TPs, this vehicle is in the standard 'horizontal' scheme for Polish armour. Markings include the 'circled bison' emblem of 1 bczl on its turret and a company commander stripe on the hull.

The 8TP np (nowa produkcja or new production) model was to adopt the imported Swedish Scania-Vabis 1664 water-cooled 6-cylinder petrol engine producing 125 hp. [1] However few - if any - of the 8TP np variants had been delivered by the beginning of September 1939.

As the name suggests, the 8TP nc (for niszczyciel czołgów) was a dedicated tank destroyer variant. The 8TP nc was armed with the new 55 mm ar.pepanc wz.38 'ZS' - an anti-tank gun reworking of the Zakłady Starachowice anti-aircraft gun proposal of 1936. [2] A new, open-topped fighting compartment was adopted which was somewhat wider than the tank's superstructure. Although new production was planned, all completed 8TP nc (and 7TP nc models) were conversions of existing twin-turreted 7TP dw hulls.

In total, no more than 17 niszczyciel czołgów were delivered - at least twelve of those being 7TP nc models with the 'Zawieszenie Vickersa' ('Vickers suspension'). Only a handful of 'Big Wheel' 8TP nc were available in September 1939.

Bottom A rare operational 8TP nc conversion. This vehicle features an 8mm Hotchkiss anti-aircraft gun. The unit goes unrecorded but most 8TP nc tank destroyers were assigned to bolster tankette-equipped armoured dywizjons. Note the 'Polish Eagle' marking with the name 'Poznańskie' beneath. [3]

________________________________________


[1] The purpose of this substitution was to conserve stocks of the 110 hp Saurer VLDBb (PZInż.235) 6-cylinder diesel engines for remaining 7TP (5th series) assembly.

[2] The anti-aircraft gun - which lost out to the 40 mm Bofors L/60 - was based on an earlier infantry gun.  That 1933 gun was a belated attempt to combine an infantry gun with an anti-tank weapon. The 'ZS' gun was also to replace the 65 mm Armata wz. 1906 mountain gun. Such a combination was doomed to failure. However, by fitting a longer 'tube' and a new mount, inz Wacław Stetkiewicz hoped to produce a 55mm anti-aircraft gun. Instead, that AA gun would form the basis for the 55 mm ar.pepanc wz.38 tank destroyer weapon.

Stetkiewicz seems also to have 'borrowed' features from the 7TP's smaller 37 Bofors - both in the design of the breech and the 'pepperpot' muzzle brake. Unfortunately, Zakłady Starachowice was slow in delivering these 55 mm guns. Several of the 7TP nc went into battle armed with the rather aenemic 47 mm wz.35 gun.

[3] 'Poznańskie' after one of the Second Polish Republic's voivodeships - there were 15 voivodeships proper plus the City of Warsaw and the Autonomous Silesian Voivodeship.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 08, 2022, 03:22:09 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 17, 2022, 10:17:14 AM
Another of those 'What would a [blank] look like with [blank feature] added on?' whifs.

In April of 1942, the General Motors of Canada Company of Oshawa received inquiries from the War Office on behalf of the Long Range Desert Group. A month earlier, the LRDG had begun using Chevrolet 1533x2 4x2 30cwt trucks sourced in Egypt. The Canadian-made trucks with their ad hoc local patrol modifications were such a success that the LRDG specifically requested more of the same. Could GM Canada supply these vehicles?

The response from Oshawa was an unexpected one. Yes, the Canadian Chevrolet trucks could be provided. However, GM Canada had an alternative suggestion based upon information provided by one of its suppliers - the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. Firestone had prototyped a half track derivative of the White armoured car and provided technical details to GM Canada for a projected gun tractor design. The latter had come to naught, but GM Canada believed that Firestone's Kégresse-style rubber track system would be ideal for maintaining traction in the challenging terrain of the Western Desert.

A contract was duly signed and the Chevrolet began producing Model 1533HT 30cwt Patrol Half-Tracks at their Oshawa plant. [1] The LRDG received their first 'Chevy' half tracks in July 1942, just in time for diversionary raids in support of the First Battle of El Alamein. The half tracks proved somewhat slower on 'solid footing' than their 4x2 equivalents ... but much faster over soft sand. Generally, the half tracks were rather underpowered but fulfilled their patrol and 'gun truck' roles until 1943. [2]

This sideview was based on photos of a Brett Green/Chris Wauchop build on Missing Links and a photo of a 1:1 scale M3.
-- http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/britain/chevy30cwtbg_1.html (http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/britain/chevy30cwtbg_1.html)
_______________________________

[1] Internally, these vehicles were known to GM Canada as the Chevrolet YR-HT series.

[2] Most of the Chevy half tracks became 'gun trucks' as they were eclipsed in the patrol role by Bantam 'Jeeps'. In May of 1943, the LRDG was moved to the eastern Med and its role changed utterly.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 17, 2022, 11:43:27 AM
I like where this is going with the LRDG Half-Track Patrol Vehicle.  Great concept and it makes you wonder if the LRDG ever considered using half-tracks for patrol vehicles. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on February 17, 2022, 12:07:29 PM
Haven't seen a lot of halftracks that I don't like and this one is no exception. Looks very neat, like an updated Citroen-Kegresse P17 or P19B from the interwar period.

(https://www.citroenorigins.fr/sites/default/files/styles/1024/public/autochenille.jpg?itok=p05D3k9u)

(https://d39a3h63xew422.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20204202/this-citroen-is-how-early-explorers-traveled-in-style-1476934581655.jpg)

(https://d39a3h63xew422.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/20204150/this-citroen-is-how-early-explorers-traveled-in-style-1476934581735.jpeg)



The Finns used some cut down M3 halftracks postwar as prime movers for their AA guns.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Yhteissisu_White_M2_Half_Track_testing.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Yhteissisu_White_M2_Half_Track_testing_2.jpg)



I can also see a similar softskin M3 halftrack variant in use with the French in Algeria in the 1950s, maybe with a different truck cab like the Dodge Weapons Carriers, like the WC62/63. They definitely used the Dodge Weapons Carriers like the old LRDG trucks and apparently could have made use of tracks in some situations!

(https://hmvforum.s3.amazonaws.com/monthly_2009_03/hmvf1.jpg.fb2443b3e07d0e949c9cb10cddeef07c.jpg)

(https://olivier.hoarau.org/wp-content/gallery/char-de-la-deuxieme-guerre-mondale/half-track.jpg)

(http://foreignlegion.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/4rei/4rei-1959-dodge-6-cie-portee.jpg)

(http://foreignlegion.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/4rei/4rei-1958-dodge-sahara-legionnaires.jpg)

(https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/106997061_2846783095432734_2559860217097043888_n.jpg?stp=cp0_dst-jpg_e15_fr_q65&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8024bb&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_ohc=bPzdVF95DsEAX9cBmUn&_nc_ht=scontent-mia3-2.xx&oh=00_AT_EZE7DGIDBiOVW6oG5Eia19LTvXyAqiEtzJVrJNBwu3A&oe=62354E5C)

(https://hmvforum.s3.amazonaws.com/monthly_2009_03/hmvf2.jpg.43e8e35bb505425580aafc66efc578cd.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 19, 2022, 10:05:56 AM
I like where this is going with the LRDG Half-Track Patrol Vehicle.  Great concept and it makes you wonder if the LRDG ever considered using half-tracks for patrol vehicles.

Jeff: It seems that the LRDG were always starved of funds (the regular Army of the day hating 'private armies'). I guess that was one reason that the LRDG were so good at scrounging enemy weapons and equipment.

With that in mind, what about the LRDG running a few ex-Afrika Korps' Sd.Kfz.250 halftracks (or even unarmoured Sd.Kfz. 10s)?

... Citroen-Kegresse P17 or P19B from the interwar period...

Logan: Thanks for that. Your Citroen-Kegresse image has already been pinched for future mutilations ;)

...The Finns used some cut down M3 halftracks postwar as prime movers for their AA guns...

I wonder why "cut down' ... was this just to save weight for towing heavy AA pieces?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on February 19, 2022, 11:26:09 AM
I wonder why "cut down' ... was this just to save weight for towing heavy AA pieces?

Apparently they were delivered without armor, though I'm not sure it was because they were intentionally demilitarized, if the armor plates were used for something else (or scrapped), or if it was a request from Finland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_half-track_car#Use

Quote
In 1947, the Finnish heavy vehicle producer Vanajan Autotehdas bought 425 M2 half-track vehicles from the Western Allied surplus stocks located in France and Germany. The vehicles were delivered without armor. Some 359 units were converted into field and forest clearing vehicles, some were scrapped for parts and 60 units were equipped with conventional rear axles and converted into 4×4 or 4×2 trucks. They were badged as Vanaja VaWh. The last units were sold in 1952.

(https://i.redd.it/bh59ban77nh61.jpg)

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on February 19, 2022, 11:59:17 AM
This was prompted by one of those vague, whiffy notions of 'Hey! What would a [blank] look like with [blank feature] added on?' Lame, I know. But I really wanted to see a Polish 7TP on a Czech suspension.

Both the 8TP and 8TP nc seem quite buildable. There's no shortage of 1/35 7TP/Vickers superstructures or of 38(t) lower hulls... I know a guy who has enough of both in his model closet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2022, 10:23:55 AM
Thanks Logan. I had wondered about a 6-wheeled M2/M3 conversion ... but I guess Eero Kytölä beat me to that notion with the VaWh (although only by 74 years) ;)

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanajan_Autotehdas

... I know a guy who has enough of both in his model closet.
Frank: I love to see an 8TP or 8TP nc built!

I started playing with the notion of ex-German Sd.Kfz.250s being employed by the Long Range Desert Group. I wasn't thrilled by the results of either attempt so they aren't really finished off. But thought that I'd share them anyway ... maybe others will see something that I've missed to make this scenario more plausible?

The idea here was vehicles abandoned by the Afrika Korps due to mine damage or the like. The bottom vehicle has had its entire rear hull replaced (probably meaning that the suspension, roadwheels and 'Gummipolster' - to me, a hilarious term for band tracks! - came from the remains of another vehicle. It has been fitted with the usual LRDG rear cargo box and festooned with weapons (here, the ubiquitous Lewis gun and an captured MG34).

The upper vehicle would not have been reparable as a halftrack. Instead, this command car has been rebuilt with the wheeled rear suspension from a scrapped 'Einheitsdiesel' lorry. Compared with the LRDG's usual Chevy truck, I suspect that the box on this vehicle would have been awkwardly high (the wireless cover door could be braced as a map table but the R/T operator would have had to stand on a box for height!).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on February 20, 2022, 10:43:32 PM
One of my very first 'whiff' builds was a half track (this was back in the '60's). I had the Airfix US Army halftrack and the German one that towed the 88mm, but I wanted something for the Brits. So I blended a Morris Quad Gun Tractor to the front of a Stug III, I liked it so much I build five or six of them.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 21, 2022, 01:23:32 AM
I like these halftrack ideas
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on February 21, 2022, 06:20:45 AM
Not at all farfetched.  ;)

(http://forums.aths.org/InstantForum2010/Uploads/Images/c3585cf3-cbb3-409a-9d39-12bd.jpg)
Quote
One of two unarmored half track vehicles to ever go into full production. Mechanically the T17 was
fairly identical to the M-series armored half-tracks of WW II: White 160 AX, six-cylinder, 386 cubic
inch engine with four speed transmission and two-speed transfer. Front tires we 8.25x2O mounted
on combat rims, and the rear steel-cable and-rubber track was 121/4 inches wide. The wheelbase
was 135.5 inches. The majority of these Autocars went to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program.
A normal Autocar commercial cab was fitted, and the hood and radiator shell were modified to suit
the vehicle, while retaining the Autocar identity. The fenders and headlamp assemblies appear to be
the same as those used on the armored versions.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/M2_truck_halftrack.jpg/1024px-M2_truck_halftrack.jpg)
Ford-Marmon Harrington 'Truck, Half-Track' M2 (production T9), 1936 Ford truck chassis with M-H front-wheel drive axle,
White suspension, 1.5 ton cargo bed.

The earlier, mid-'30s, T4 and T5 test vehicles were built by GM using commercial chassis.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51894021554_aa8ddc8d5e_o.png)
T5, Cunningham suspension.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 22, 2022, 05:07:22 PM
Not at all farfetched.  ;)

Thanks for that Jon! The T5 with Cunningham suspension is especially relevant. Had I done more research myself, I would have realized that Canada already had the 'makings' for a Chevrolet half-track before WW2.

The Canadian War Museum has a 1936 Canadian Army half-track on display which the CWM identifies as a 'Ford-Marmon-Harrington'. Except it isn't. Other sources ID the prewar RCA and RCAF half-tracks as supplied by 'Innis Cunningham' of Toronto. I can't figure out exactly who this 'Innis' was. But the track system was the same Cunningham Universal as on your T5 photo. In other words, track systems were provided by James Cunningham, Son and Company of Rochester, NY.

Thus, the Royal Canadian Artillery was towing around 18-pounder limbers with Cunningham tracks back in 1936. In the same year, the RCAF adopted a Cunningham tracked dump truck (based on the Chevrolet Series P 1). So, it was conceivable that GM Canada could have supplied half-tracks to the LRDG upon that unit's establishment.

A downside to that scenario is that the Cunningham Universal suspension resulted in a slower vehicle than the M2/M3. According to the Cunningham brochure cover, 2.5" pitch tracks were available for 2-ton trucks. Road speed is listed as 30 mph, cross-country speed as 25 mph. So, the Cunningham system would have been slower than both the M3 and Sd.Kfz. 250 but faster than most of the Citroën-Kégresse variants.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on February 25, 2022, 02:02:21 AM
The T5E2 variant had a 10" wide track version of the Cunningham suspension.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2022, 08:00:44 AM
The T5E2 variant had a 10" wide track version of the Cunningham suspension.

Thanks Jon. By chance, do you have an image of this T5E2? I haven't been able to find anything online  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 05, 2022, 04:37:42 AM
Here's a so-so shot from Hunnicut of the 10" suspension assembly. The vehicle itself was the same as the T5.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 11, 2022, 08:14:00 AM
Here's a so-so shot from Hunnicut of the 10" suspension assembly. The vehicle itself was the same as the T5.

Nice! Thanks Jon  :smiley:

______________________________

This one is probably now a 'Should Have Been' ...

Upgraded, ex-Polish MiG-29G in temporary, non-standard markings after transfer to Ukraine.

Perhaps the MiG-29Gs were forwarded to Ukraine via Moldova?
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=199.25#msg194842


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 11, 2022, 01:55:11 PM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 12, 2022, 01:07:07 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 18, 2022, 10:30:53 AM

This was something I started on for the 100th Anniversary of the RAAF Group Build. The backstory is rather long so I'll break it in two ... with the profiles accompanying Part Two  ;)

____________________________

Avro Adelaide - The Lancaster Down Under

As far back as 1942, Canberra had been in serious discussions with London about producing the Avro Type 683 Lancaster heavy bomber in Australia - both to supply the RAF and for domestic RAAF use. The Lancaster would be, by far, the largest airframe ever built in Australia. But, even ignoring that, the challenges were extreme. Many key components which could not be produced in Australia would need to be imported from the UK - travelling by sea through U-Boat infested waters.

Compounding problems was that the Aircraft Construction Branch of the Department of Supply and Development was already being overwhelmed by its workload. [1] By 1943, the Beaufort Division of the Department of Aircraft Production (DAP) was to switch over to building an Australian version of the Lancaster Mk.III. But the RAAF was calling for more Bristol Beaufort bomber to be built by the DAP, not less. Thus, it quickly became apparent that private industry would be needed to tackle Lancaster production Down Under. As a result, in mid-1943, A.V. Roe Australia (aka Avro Australia) was established with a small administrative office in Canberra. While the exact characteristics of Australian-made Lancaster were being worked out by officialdom (in Canberra and in the British Ministry of Aircraft Production), Avro Australia began arrangements for production facilities.

At the time, airframe production in Australia centred around the Fisherman's Bend area outside of Melbourne. There was simply no space left for another large aircraft assembly facility in that area. The industrial areas of all other major Australian cities were also completely taken up with war work. As a result, Canberra was keen to create factory space in underbuilt areas which still had access to infrastructure. A survey of potential sites narrowed planner's attention to a small harbour town on Spencer Gulf in South Australia named Port Pirie. As the name suggests, there were existing port facilities as well as rail connections and a surfeit of flat land surrounding the local aerodrome.

Setting Up in South Australia - A.V. Roe Australia Arrives

In early 1944, Avro Australia established its headquarters in Adelaide. [2] By then, it had been agreed that the Lancaster production plant would be situated 140 miles north at Port Pirie. This location was chosen to avoid disrupting established war work in Adelaide. But there were also a range of related inducements. Financial incentives were provided by both Canberra and the State government of South Australia. The town council of Port Pirie provided by the necessary land free of charge. [3] The large assembly plant was built with funding from Adelaide matched by private investment from the local firm, Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd (BHAS). [4]

Lest all this sounds too grand, it should be noted that maximum advantage was to be taken of the arid local climate to perform much of the final assembly work out in the open air under canvas. The existing aerodrome was due south of the Town of Port Pirie. The proffered factory land was adjacent to the aerodrome's western boundary. The first product of this new facility was the unpacking of pre-fabricated house kits for assembly on the new workers' housing plot to the north of the factory. [5] Improvements were also made to Wandearah Road to allow heavy lorry access to the plant from both the quays on Port Pirie Creek and the Trans-Australia Railway sidings. By October 1944, worker housing was complete and the factory ready to begin Lancaster production. However, by this time, 'Lancaster' had become something of a misnomer.

Potential, Perils, and Problems at Port Pirie

While the Lancaster was the best of the RAF's nocturnal heavy bombers, its diurnal performance - a required operating environment for the RAAF - left something to be desired. Ironically, delays had provided the opportunity to introduce some improvements in future Australian-built Lancasters. In the search for more power, availability issues quickly eliminated various marks of Rolls-Royce Griffon as well as the Bristol Centaurus CE 1SM radial. However, experience with the RAF's Vickers Warwick bomber suggested another 18-cylinder radial - the American  Pratt & Whitney R-2800.

An equally serious problem was that production of British-built Frazer-Nash turrets for the Lancaster was insufficient to also fill Australian needs. Several alternative armament schemes were investigated before settling on a mix of imported American turrets and domestically-produced Australian systems. The Frazer-Nash FN-50 'mid-upper' was to be replaced by a US Martin 250CE-5 dorsal turret. The tail FN-20 would be replaced by a Consolidated A6A tail turret. The Frazer-Nash FN-5 had no direct American analogue and that nose position was to be completely redesigned and fitted with a compact flexible gun mount devised by the tiny Thebarton firm of Scott Bonnar & Co. As on British-built Lancaster the belly position would be occupied by an aerodynamic blister for the H2S targeting radar antenna.

As with the original Lancaster, the enormous, 64" diameter main tyres were by Dunlop - in this case, Dunlop Rubber Australia Ltd. of Melbourne. The self-centring tailwheel tyres were to made at the Somerton, Melbourne plant of B.F. Goodrich. In both cases, the tyres were to be shipped (already mounted to their split rims) by sea to Port Pirie. And so they would in the case of the Dunlop main tyres. But the B.F. Goodrich order would ultimately be cancelled as production plans shifted and changed.

Design Changes and a New Name

As plans (and supply chains) firmed up, the Port Pirie bomber began to deviate more both from the British original and the initial Australian scheme. Although not all that noticeable, the planned Consolidated A6A tail turret was replaced by the MPC 250CH-6. [6] The RAAF decided that the H2S radar set with its bulbous blister was unnecessary for its anticipated daytime bombing role. As a result, the search was on for a ventral gun system. The lowest-drag system was chosen - the US GE Model 2CGD50 remotely-controlled barbettes and their 2CFR55B1 Central Fire Control system (as mounted on USAAF B-29 bombers). Supply problems arose again and the upper barbette was deleted in favour of retaining the manned Martin 250CE-5 dorsal turret.

With the decision to install a belly armament, the fixed Lancaster tailwheel had to go to ensure a clear arc of defensive fire. An entirely new and fully retractable tailwheel strut was developed and produced by Horwood Bagshaw Ltd. of Adelaide. With B.F. Goodrich otherwise engaged with war work, Olympic Tyre & Rubber Co. (of West Footscray, Melbourne) produced the ribbed tyre for this new tailwheel design. Such were the on-going list of equipment changes introduced, that it was decided to rename the planned Lancaster B.Mk.30.

After considering the aboriginal word 'Alcheringa' - 'Dreamtime' in the Arandic language - it was decided to stick with the RAF Bomber Command practice of naming bombers for major cities. There could only be one choice for a South Australian-made bomber and, thus, the alliterative Avro Adelaide was agreed upon. Despite seemingly endless supply problems and shortages, the new Adelaide B.1 seemed on time. The first Australian-built heavy bombers aimed to be in operational service before 'X-Day' - 01 November 1945, the scheduled date for Operation Olympic - the Allied invasion of Kyushu in the Japanese home islands.

(To be continued ...)

_______________________________________

[1] The Branch's Department of Aircraft Production (DAP) was primarily focused on its Beaufort Division - which was to locally produce Bristol Type 153s fitted with CAC-built R-1830 engines.

[2] Thereafter, the Canberra offices became the corporate interface with RAAF HQ and government officials.

[3] Dominated by the Broken Hills lead smelter. the Town of Port Pirie was desirous of diversifying beyond being a one-industry town.

[4] This was not a first for Broken Hill Associated Smelters - BHAS had been a partial funder in the establishment of the Commonwealth Aircraft Company back in 1936.

[5] Once finished, this 'Curtinville' housing estate was connected to the Town of Port Pirie proper via a southward extension of Senate Road.

[6] As the name suggests, Detroit-based Motor Products Corporation had supplied parts to the automotive industry before the war.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 18, 2022, 01:45:03 PM
 :D :smiley: :smiley: 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 19, 2022, 01:44:00 AM
Can't wait to see the profiles for this one.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2022, 05:18:08 AM
Can't wait to see the profiles for this one.

And here they are ...  ;D
____________________________________

Part Two

Relief ... and Disappointment - the Avro Adelaide B.1

As detail design of the Adelaide B.1 was being completed, the USAAF was switching to night bomber over the Japanese home islands. At the same time, it was realized that the bulky H2S radar antenna could be made retractable. This would serve to reduce drag while also providing a better field of fire for the remotely-operated belly gun barbette. Accordingly, a reinforced opening was let into the belly and internal bracing installed to both hold and guide the retracting radome shape. At the same time, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research's Radiophysics Laboratory unveiled its domestic automatic gun-laying radar technology - the RPL-AGL.10 which was to be incorporated into the Adelaide B.1's rear turret. [1]

As the first tranche of Adelaide B.1 bombers took shape on the line at Avro Australia's Port Pirie plane, the world changed. On 15 August 1945, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito publicly announced the surrender of Imperial Japan. The treaty of surrender would be formally signed on 02 September 1945 but, by then, all work at Port Pirie had been halted awaiting further instruction from Canberra.

At the end of September 1945, Avro Australia received word that the first four Adelaide B.1 airframes should be completed without turrets and some other government-supplied equipment being fitted. The four aircraft were to be delivered to the Air Force at RAAF Base Laverton in Victoria for basic flight testing. These test aircraft were duly delivered to Laverton in October-November of 1945. With the war over, trials were conducted as a leisurely pace. These trials were highly successful but, in RAAF planning, the domestic Adelaide B.1 had already been eclipsed by the larger Avro Lincoln B.Mk.30.

Top A depiction of the Avro (Australia) Adelaide B.1 as it would have appeared with all turrets fitted. As it happens, no Adelaide airframe was ever completed to full B.1 standards.

Adelaide MR.Mk.2 - New Role for a New Era

Faced with the danger of existing Adelaide B.1 contracts being cancelled outright, Avro Australia made a bold proposal to the RAAF HQ. This was: Complete the most advanced 22 Adelaide B.1 bombers with new equipment to suite these airframes to the marine patrol and long-range reconnaissance roles. This was agreed. The internal equipment and crew stations of the B.1 would be completely revised to fill these new roles. And, as it happened, this delay and design revision worked rather well in regards to much of the Lend-Lease kit that was to have been incorporated into the B.1 bombers. All US-supplied turrets and interim Pratt & Whitney-built R-2800-S14A-G engines could now be cancelled.

By December of 1945, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation engine factory at Fisherman's Bend, Melbourne, was completing its first license-built R-2800-2SB-G radials. The first of these 1,850 hp engines arrived at Port Pirie via the Trans-Australian Railway by the middle of December. The first 16 CAC-built engines were used to re-engine the trials airframes. Once accomplished, completion of the Adelaide MR.2 variant could begin in earnest. When the prototype Adelaide MR.2 rolled out in late May 1947, the transformation was quite apparent.

The redesign for the Avro (Australia) Adelaide MR.2 was heavily influenced by the parent company's design for its Lincoln ASR.3 (which would emerge in 1949 as the Shackleton GR.1 patrol aircraft. This influence was most apparent in the chin-mounted search radar - the ASV Mk.III derivative of the bomber's H2S set. The Adelaide MR.2's revised tailcone design anticipated future Shackleton variants. Internally, the biggest changes were to crew stations. The bomb-aimer's position was lengthened and the gun position eliminated - the nose now being capped with the perspex from the Handley-Page Halifax[/i]. [2] Two pilots were now standard - the co-pilot seat being set slightly aft of the pilot's.

To the rear, the wireless operator now shared the space directly aft of the cockpit with the flight engineer. To create space, the navigator's compartment was moved aft of the wings. The former remote-gunners' positions now became an observer's station (the observer also being responsible for the vertical cameras immediately aft. In the extended tailcone was another observer's station - this time, a prone position. As noted earlier, that tailcone was based on Shackleton studies - being something of a compromise in shape between the Lancastrian tailcone and that intended for the 'Shack'.

Active Avro Adelaide MR.2s - Into RAAF Squadron Service

After an additional set of performance trials carried out at RAAF Laverton, the first Adelaide MR.2 was accepted for squadron service. As existing maritime patrol units were still operating Lockheed Venturas, it was decided to stand up a new, long-range patrol squadron. To that end, No. 10 Squadron RAAF was re-formed at Townsville on 31 May 1947 Although some No. 10 personnel were transferred in from Ventura units, most had been former wartime Sunderland or Lancaster crew members.

Bottom Adelaide MR.2 in No. 10 Squadron markings and post-1950 'white-top' scheme. The latter was simply a heat-reducing 'titanium white' paint applied over the delivery all-over natural metal/silver dope scheme. The 'titanium white' top served its purpose but was replaced in 1954-55 by a revised 'white-top' scheme. This final scheme replaced natural metal altogether with the fuselage top remaining white but with the new British Standards 381C Light Admiralty Grey on undersurfaces and sides while the upper wing and tail surfaces were a gloss version of RAF Ocean Grey.

The Avro (Australia) Adelaide MR.2s served on (in incrementally updated forms) until 1958. No. 10 Squadron first moved on to modified Lincoln MR.30s as interim replacements before receiving new Lockheed P2V-7 Neptunes in 1962. [3]


____________________________

[1] The Australian AGL radar system had been devised under Dr John Piddington at the Radiophysics Laboratory.

[2] The forward nose of the Adelaide was completely redesigned. By serendipity, the June 1946 arrival of the Halifax B.III 'Waltzing Matilda' (NR169) Down Under had provided Avro Australia with an opportunity to examine its perspex nose. Once it was confirmed that the Adelaide nose could be modified to match the Handley-Page section, war-surplus perspex parts were ordered collected in the UK.

[3] Unpopular with crews, the Lincoln MR.30 was a 'least mod' patrol variant which lacked the crew amenities of the Adelaide and was much noisier than the earlier type. The P2V-7 Neptune was a refined version of the Lockheed P2V-5 which had been serving with No. 11 Squadron at RAAF Pearce since the mid-1950s.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 19, 2022, 02:26:36 PM
I love the B.Mk.1 :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on March 19, 2022, 05:20:51 PM
I love the B.Mk.1 :-*

I'll second that
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on March 19, 2022, 09:19:15 PM
Nice profiles Stephen  :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

For my Australian Lancaster build, I've been thinking a nose like the MR you have there put on the B.1 at the top. And I've found that F7F R-2800 cowlings fit on Shackleton nacelles very well with almost no modifications to do so I'm going to use them. I'm also thinking of using Lancaster Mk.IV wings because I'm going to use some larger diameter propellers and I need to space the outer nacelles further out, and also use the squared off at the bottom fins/rudders too. And I think I'll do the canopy a bit like your MR too.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: The Big Gimper on March 20, 2022, 12:04:12 AM
Great job Stephen. Lovely profiles.

Well if Avro Australia can rename the Lancaster, than why cannot Avro Canada too. So how about the Avro Abbotsford?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 20, 2022, 01:48:36 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 20, 2022, 09:51:41 AM
Many thanks folks. After writing that backstory, I'm wondering if the Avro (Australia)-built Lincolns might not also have been CAC R-2800-powered? If so, might an R-2800-powered Shackleton have later emerged instead of the Neptunes?

Well if Avro Australia can rename the Lancaster, than why cannot Avro Canada too. So how about the Avro Abbotsford?

I like it Carl! In the '50s, the Village of Abbotsford was just 'bump in the road'. But CYXX had been RCAF Abbotsford until 1946 (I'm guessing that it ceased operations along with No.5 OTU?). So, I'd say wartime RCAF base status alone makes 'Abbotsford' a viable name

Two other Lanc rebranding ideas come to mind - historical = Avro Annapolis (after Annapolis Royal); and regional = Avro Athabasca (technically also a village in AB but I was going for the River).

For my Australian Lancaster build, I've been thinking a nose like the MR you have there put on the B.1 at the top. And I've found that F7F R-2800 cowlings fit on Shackleton nacelles very well with almost no modifications to do so I'm going to use them. I'm also thinking of using Lancaster Mk.IV wings because I'm going to use some larger diameter propellers and I need to space the outer nacelles further out, and also use the squared off at the bottom fins/rudders too. And I think I'll do the canopy a bit like your MR too.

Thanks Robert. I noted your matching of the F7F cowling with the Shack nacelles (elsewhere here on BtS? Or was it on Secret Projects?) and unceremoniously nicked the idea. However, I used DC-6 cowlings as my model.

I too had wondered about prop diameter when I went with DC-6 HamStans. The prop shapes I've shown are pretty amorphous but, in my imagination, they represent the 4-bladed Curtiss Electric C642S-B/836-14C2-18 ... which apparently had a diameter 18" less than comparable HamStans (plus Australian industry seemed to favour Curtiss Electric propellers - at least going by DAP's Beaufort Division).

Stretching out more, the thought of 5-bladed British props also came to mind. Compared to a 15 foot diameter for the HamStan 3-bladers for the R-2800, the Rotol 5-blader for the Sea Fury only measure 12' 9". And, of course, there is the major technical advantage of 5-bladed props just looking wicked!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on March 20, 2022, 09:23:08 PM
One option for the Shackleton MPR.4 was it to be powered by R-3350's Stephen.

16 Foot diameter would be the biggest diameter I'd use, that way you don't have to move the inner nacelles. But you would have to move the outer nacelles at least 11 feet further out  :-\  But 15 feet sounds about right, I've got a couple of sets of Aeroclubs DC-7 props in the stash, 4-bladers (paddle blades) and spinners.

And how about Avro Penhold   ;)  Mind you, I think it would really need a name of a town where the Lancaster could have been made (other than Malton) so it would have been somewhere down east where the population was/is.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 21, 2022, 01:04:57 AM
A single finned tail version could be an interesting development - a bit like the Liberator to Privateer developments.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2022, 10:46:52 AM
Robert: Interesting about the R-3350s on an enlarged Shackleton. I wonder if that would have gone up against a Bristol version of the Canadair CL-28 Argus?

A single finned tail version could be an interesting development - a bit like the Liberator to Privateer developments.

The single-fin Adelaide was a one-off MR Mk.2 conversion. The goal was to improve slow-speed handling while on patrol. To test this, Avro Australia installed a single fin tailplane based roughly on the design of the new British Type 688 Tutor airliner. In the intitial installation, the fin and rudder were inspired by the Tutor 2. When service trials showed no improvement in handling, the aircraft was returned to Port Pirie for modification.

Top Adelaide MR Mk.2 A76-814 as redelivered to No. 10 Squadron RAAF Townsville.

Avro Australia enlarged the fin and rudder, resembling those of the later-model Tutor airliners. This modification produced minor handling improvements but, by this time, the RAAF had lost interest in changing to a single fin. Adelaide MR Mk.2 A76-814 remained 'on the books' but was never returned to the RAAF. Instead, the single-fin testbed stayed at Port Pirie, acting as a general 'test mule' for Avro Australia.

Bottom Adelaide MR.2 A76-814 test-bed at Port Pirie, SA. While the much-enlarged tailplane is obvious, here, A76-814 is also displaying 5-bladed Rotol propellers. These props were a judged a success but the mod was short-lived as the enormous spinners caused the engines to run hot (especially at low altitude).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2022, 10:50:02 AM
And another. This time a response to Clave's Turboprop Spitfire...

I'm calling it the Supermarine's 'Sacrilege' - a Type 356 Spitfire F.Mk.24 converted to the one-off 'Propeller-Turbine' conversion.

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.msg195180#msg195180

The Rolls-Royce Dart propeller turbine installation was simple one but the long nose resulted in a dreadful view from the cockpit - especially on take-off and landing. The asymmetrical turbine exhaust duct helped with stability but at the cost of resonance issues with the tail structure and thermal damage to the elevators' fabric coverings.

Bottom Spitfire F.Mk.24 re-serialled TP946 as the prototype Type 356PT as delivered.

Top Type 356PT Spitfire as modified with the horizontal tailplane from a Type 398 Attacker F.1 with a revised cockpit and canopy arrangement to accommodate a Martin-Baker Mk.2 ejector seat.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 21, 2022, 10:08:43 PM
Yes, Sacrilege is definitely the right name for it! ::)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 22, 2022, 01:33:44 AM
I like it...but then again, I'm sacrilegious...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on March 22, 2022, 02:01:40 AM
Robert: Interesting about the R-3350s on an enlarged Shackleton. I wonder if that would have gone up against a Bristol version of the Canadair CL-28

At the time, the other option was the Nimrod ----
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 22, 2022, 04:15:50 AM
And how about Avro Penhold   ;)  Mind you, I think it would really need a name of a town where the Lancaster could have been made (other than Malton) so it would have been somewhere down east where the population was/is.

Avro Arnprior has a decent ring to it.

Avro Ajax could also work.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on March 22, 2022, 09:17:57 PM
And how about Avro Penhold   ;)  Mind you, I think it would really need a name of a town where the Lancaster could have been made (other than Malton) so it would have been somewhere down east where the population was/is.

Why does it have to be back east? Avro Abbotsford...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on March 23, 2022, 12:28:58 AM
And how about Avro Penhold   ;)  Mind you, I think it would really need a name of a town where the Lancaster could have been made (other than Malton) so it would have been somewhere down east where the population was/is.

Why does it have to be back east? Avro Abbotsford...

As I said, that was where the most population was, but it could be in other places too.  Some companies in Calgary for instance, built sections of the Liberty Ships which were then shipped by train to the shipyards in Vancouver.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on March 23, 2022, 04:05:48 AM
And how about Avro Penhold   ;)  Mind you, I think it would really need a name of a town where the Lancaster could have been made (other than Malton) so it would have been somewhere down east where the population was/is.

Why does it have to be back east? Avro Abbotsford...

As I said, that was where the most population was, but it could be in other places too.  Some companies in Calgary for instance, built sections of the Liberty Ships which were then shipped by train to the shipyards in Vancouver.

If you're talking Calgary and area, how about the Avro Airdrie? It would work on both sides of the Atlantic as Airdrie, Alberta was named after Airdrie in Scotland.

Just don't name it after Penhold. I was in the Air Cadets and spent three summer camps in Penhold. Sleep didn't come easy when you had no faith in the structural integrity of the outdated barracks there. Don;t name your plane after something that could fall apart around you if you sneezed in it, :-D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on March 23, 2022, 04:07:55 AM
The powers that be in the East wouldn't have used a name from the West and it'd probably be
a name that resonated with an "English" connection.

Howzabout Avro "Mount Royal".  ;)


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 23, 2022, 05:20:21 AM
Howzabout Avro "Mount Royal".  ;)

Reminding me of those old cracks about it being ever so long since Canadians had elected a Prime Minister from Montréal  :P

Since this naming-game started with the Adelaide, I presume that we're talking about the Lancaster 10MP. If it has to be Central Canadian, how about an island name? I'm thinking Avro Anticosti (WW2 U-Boat attack connection) or - if it must be anglocentric - maybe Avro Amherst?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on March 23, 2022, 04:31:14 PM
Since this naming-game started with the Adelaide, I presume that we're talking about the Lancaster 10MP. If it has to be Central Canadian, how about an island name? I'm thinking Avro Anticosti (WW2 U-Boat attack connection) or - if it must be anglocentric - maybe Avro Amherst?

Actually it took me a bit of thought to realise Abbotsford - my first thought was Avro Anishnaabemowin, but somehow I don't think that'd've been selected back then...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 24, 2022, 01:05:06 AM
And another. This time a response to Clave's Turboprop Spitfire...

I'm calling it the Supermarine's 'Sacrilege' - a Type 356 Spitfire F.Mk.24 converted to the one-off 'Propeller-Turbine' conversion.



Dare I suggest Supermarine Sacrileges being used in a COIN/CAS role by either (or all 3) of RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF in Vietnam (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=102.0)?    ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 25, 2022, 04:58:53 AM

P'raps ... but, for now, I'm still on orphans from the 100th Anniversary of the RAAF GB.

------------------

"The wind blows wherever it pleases" - From Hurricane to Gale

In 1939, the British Air Ministry wanted potential alternative powerplants for key aircraft types. Hawker Aircraft is asked to prepare designs for Hurricanes other than the big-demand Merlin. After the Bristol Taurus was eliminated, the project firmed up as the 'Hercules-Hurricane'. By this time, the new Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP) takes over the requirement. But MAP was also mandating priority production of Hurricanes at Brooklands. To free up Hawkers, responsibility for the 'Hercules-Hurricane' was passed on to the firm's subsidiary, Gloster Aircraft.

With Gloster's new chief designer W.G. Carter otherwise engaged, the task of re-stressing the Hurricane airframe for the big radial engine was passed on to H.E. Preston in the Hucclecote Drawing Office. Howard Preston quickly discovered that more than a straightforward conversion was needed. The Bristol Hercules radial engine weighed 600 lbs more than the original V-12 Merlin. Accordingly, Preston undertook a more thorough redesign of the Hurricane airframe. From the revised firewall forward, the design was entirely new. Behind that firewall, the Hurricane design remained largely unchanged.

However, it was found advantageous to reposition the cockpit one frame aft. This was done primarily to shift the c/g aft to account for the heavier engine. However, it also freed up space for an enlarged fuselage reserve tank - now holding 50 Imperial gallons of fuel vs. the original 28 gallons. These changes were applied to V6799 - a Gloster-built Hurricane Mk.I which had been damaged by an engine fire. Cheekily rebranded as the Gloster Gale, the re-engined fighter was dispatched to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment.

Top Gloster Gale as originally trialled by the A&AEE at Boscombe Down. Note the standard Hurricane fin and the large intake for the Bristol Hercules' updraught carburettor.

The A&AEE recommended an enlarged rudder to cope with a more powerful engine. With a tailplane redesign required, Howard Preston took the opportunity to delete the Hurricane's lower strake to allow the original, retractable tailwheel to be reinstated (although, in fact, the original tailwheel would remain in place). Lateral stability was improved with the new fin and rudder assemblies in place but MAP was losing interest in the 'Hercules-Hurricane'. Gloster's priority was now beginning production of Hawker's new Typhoon fighter. It was then decided to transfer the entire Gloster Gale project to Australia.

Whirls the Willy-Willy Down Under

In October 1941, the prototype Gloster Gale conversion arrived at Port Melbourne (along with multiple sets of surplus Gloster-built Hurricane Mk.I wing panels). It was assumed that the simpler structure of the Hurricane airframe would make local production simpler than introducing the stressed-skinned Beaufort bomber. Completed Gales were initially envisioned as ground attack aircraft for the Western Desert. As Italian resistance in North Africa faded, thoughts shifted towards the Gales being supplied to the RAF at Singapore. There was just one impediment to these lofty plans - as delivered, the Gale prototype had been shorn of its engine. Worse, it looked doubtful whether any Hercules could be spared for the Gale (priority having been given to the Beaufort).

With the aviation industry burgeoning at Fisherman's Bend, it was decided to start a new division of the Department of Aircraft Production to produce the Gale. Accordingly, the somewhat unimaginatively-named Government Aircraft Factory division of the DAP was established at Essendon, Victoria. While the plant was being constructed, the DAP's Beaufort Division took on the challenge of making the Gale conversion airworthy. The most powerful engine available in Australia was the Pratt & Whitney R-1830 radial being built by CAC for the Beaufort. Although less powerful than the Hercules, the R-1830 was the logical choice for Australian-made Gales.

Bottom Gloster Gale being fitted with an R-1830 engine by the DAP Beaufort Division at Fisherman's Bend, VIC, late December 1941.

(To be continued ...)

_________________________________________
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 26, 2022, 12:51:02 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2022, 04:47:13 AM
"The wind blows wherever it pleases" - Part Two

DAP Beaufort Division's take on the Gloster Gale conversion broke no new ground. It worked but what was effectively a R-1830-powered Hurricane was no state-of-the-art fighter aircraft. If anything, the revised Gale was an underperformer compared to the Merlin-engined original. And that was not encouraging after the recent mauling the Japanese had given RAF Hurricane Mk.Is and Mk.IIs over Singapore and the NEI! [1]

Luckily, the new American allies were now offering Curtiss fighters to Australia. It was decided that the Gale should follow the lead of the 'Hurri-bomber'. Rather than producing a domestic interceptor fighter of dubious quality, the DAP should be tailored to the close-support role. By the time of this decision, basic facilities were nearing completion at Essendon. Further development work was to be undertaken by the design staff at the Department of Aircraft Production's latest division - the newly-formed Government Aircraft Factory. Although the GAF design team was small, the assigned task was considered manageable.

Several shortcomings of the Beaufort Division's ad hoc modifications had to be addressed. Fortunately, most of the problems were inter-related. Most serious was the lack of view over the large engine from the rear-set cockpit. This was made worse by the sliding hood - seen as unnecessarily cramped by DAP test-pilots. And that hood suffered from turbulence generated by the new carburettor intake fairing. Tufting revealed that the abrupt ending of the intake fairing was at fault and extending that fairing would resolve the problem. The canopy was a bigger challenge.

Adjustment of the pilot's seat for greater elevation during take-offs and landings was alit upon. For this a taller windscreen would be required. As it happened, the Commonwealth Aircraft Company had already designed a canopy for an original fighter design which was both taller and wider. By an arrangement through the Department of Supply and Development, it was agreed that CAC would supply this canopy to the GAF division for the Gale. A new tail-group of simplified form was also designed and GAF received an initial order for pre-production run of 20 fighter-bombers. [2]

Bottom One of the Series 1 pre-production GAF (Gloster) Gale Mk.XXs armed with eight .303-inch Browning machine guns. 'Bluey' wears the originally-specified RAF-style camouflage scheme.

The pre-production Gale Mk.XXs were followed on by another 40 Series 2 airframes. These aircraft had domestically-produced wings. The centre sections were virtually identical to the Hurricane. However, to conserve strategic resources, the outboard wing panels were completely redesigned. In place of stressed-skin aluminium, the GAF panels were of mixed construction. The spars were built up of welded steel tubing, the ribs were of local wood, and the covering was of pre-moulded plywood. In some ways, these structures were a retrograde step but they were easily made by semi-skilled workers and their spars allowed ready changes in armament type. [3]

The Series 2 - or GAF Gale Mk.XXI - was armed with four .5-inch Browning wings guns (for commonality with the RAAF's new Curtiss Kittyhawk fighters). This model also introduced a larger, under-nose oil cooler which cured most of the overheating problems experienced by Mk.XXs. [4] With the Mk.XXI, the Gale came into its own. These aircraft often served as target-spotters for bomb-totting Wirraways or Kittyhawks - using their tracer-heavy gun loads and marker flares to 'illuminate' potential targets. This made the best use of the Gale excellent handling at slow speeds and low altitude. But, on occasion, the Gales themselves carried the bombs (as originally intended).

Top A newly-delivered GAF Gale Mk.XXIA with freshly-applied white recognition panels. As on all Series 2 aircraft, this Gale Mk.XXIA wears RAAF-specific camouflage colours.

The Series 2 Gale Mk.XXI and Mk.XXIA differed only in minor equipment changes. So too did the Series 3 Gale Mk.XXIII and Series 4 Gale Mk.XXV which completed the production run. (The cannon-armed Gale Mk.XXII and six-gunned Mk.XXIV were flown only as temporary experimental conversions of Gale Mk.XXs.

(Fin)

______________________

[1] No. 242 Squadron RAF Hurricanes entered the fray over Singapore on 20 Jan 1942. By 10 Feb 1942, the remaining eight airworthy Hurricanes had to be withdrawn to the NEI. There, they join newly-arrived No. 232 Squadron (the two units merging into a revived No. 242). After the squadron moved up to Sumatra, not a single Hurricane remained airworthy by the first week of March.

[2] This number was dictated by the number of Hurricane Mk.I wing panels shipped out from England.

[3] The more 'open' nature of the welded-tube spars meant that longer weapons could simply 'pass through' the spar structures. Such was the case with both the trialled Hispano cannons and the outermost .5-inch gun in the  six-gun arrangement.

[4] Most Gale Mk.XXs were refitted with Mk.XXI-style oil coolers, thus becoming Gale Mk.XXAs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 26, 2022, 06:58:25 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2022, 09:51:45 AM
Another aimed at the RAAF 100th Anniversary Group Build...

No backstory 'cuz this one is kind of obvious ... the Dassault Mirage F.1 as a follow-on for the Mirage III-O.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 27, 2022, 12:38:45 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 31, 2022, 12:02:49 PM
And yet another RAAF 100th Anniversary Group Build orphan ...

By all outward appearances, Geoffrey N. Wikner's brief foray into Britain had been a complete success. The Foster, Wikner Aircraft Company Limited had been established on 9 Sept 1936. By early 1937, the firm had opened new premises at Eastleigh (Southampton) to begin production of the Foster-Wikner Wicko cabin monoplane. But Geoff Wikner didn't feel that he 'fit' in Blighty. In a previous British venture, Wikner had been robbed of his agreed-upon design credit and this had left a bitter taste. [1]

Geoff's cousin, Edgar Percival, was also beginning to sour on the business environment in Britain. Hedging his bets, Edgar decided to create a separate corporate entity to build his light aircraft designs back home in Australia. When Edgar offered his cousin the opportunity to head this new venture, Geoff lept at the chance to return home. After some to-doing with London and Brisbane lawyers, the incorporation of Percival-Wicko Aircraft Pty was announced in late 1937. Geoff Wikner was on his way home to Queensland!

Planning for Percival-Wicko Production

Percival-Wicko Aircraft Pty Ltd offices were established in Brisbane with assembly facilities at Archerfield Aerodrome just outside the city. The object was the construction and marketing of two derivatives of the popular Percival Gull family. The PW.7 Pacific Gull 3-seater was a Gull 4 derivative powered by a de Havilland Gipsy Major. The PW.15 Silver Gull 4-seater was based on the Percival Vega Gull. A tyro marketing department soon established that there was little demand in Australia for the less-powerful Pacific Gull and the PW.7 was soon dropped from 'PWA' sales brochures.

Geoff was also returning with an original design in hand - the Walara (Pigeon) powered by a DH Gipsy Major. [2] Submitted to the RAAF in late 1938, the PW.22 Walara was to be an ab initio trainer to match the more powerful PW.20 Pengana (Hawk) primary trainer. RAAF HQ declined to review the PW.22 - having already committed to the DH.82A Tiger Moth as a basic trainer. However, Canberra was interested in the larger PW.20 concept. The problem was that no prototype PW.20 yet existed.

Wikner had a relatively free hand in the overall design of the PW.20 but it was understood that a maximum of PW.15 Silver Gull components would be used. For the prototype, that would be true of the tailplane, engine mount, and undercarriage. The 2-seat fuselage would be similar in construction but much narrower. [3] The wings were directly related to the outer panels of the PW.15 but with the wing-fold mechanism deleted along with the entire wing centre-section. Instead, the outer panels were bolted directly onto the fuselage and the main landing gear attached to those panels. As a result of this commonality, prototype construction proceeded very quickly.

PW.20 Pengana - Percival-Wicko's Primer for Pilots

The first prototype PW.20 Pengana flew at Archerfield on 16 August 1939. In late September, Canberra requested the aircraft be flown to RAAF Station Point Cook in Victoria for testing by personnel from No. 1 Flying Training School. This was to be a competitive 'fly-off' between the PW.20 Pengana and the newly-completed Commonwealth CA-2 Wackett. The latter proved underpowered and, at CAC's request, the comparative trails were postponed to allow the CA-2 to be refitted with the same engine type as the PW.20. Percival-Wicko took advantage of the same postponement to install sliding canopy sections similar to those of the CA-2. [4]

When the Point Cook trials reconvened, a fairer comparison between the two types could be made. For handling, the Pengana was the more challenging aircraft - but this was seen as a good thing. Both types were gauged simple to construct and had been largely designed around locally-available materials (including the engine which was to be produced by Holden). But the CAC machine was still judged to be somewhat underpowered. That made the difference. Percival-Wicko Aircraft had its first real order - for an initial production batch of 25 Pengana Mk.I trainers for the RAAF. A final PW.15 Silver Gull on the production line was completed for a private customer as the Archerfield factory retooled exclusively to build the PW.20 for the RAAF.

Top The prototype Percival-Wicko PW.20 Pengana VH-ABS. [5] Note the open cockpits, Vega Gull-style spats, and polished spinner for the DH Gipsy Six's Hydromatic airscrew.

The initial production batch of Pengana Mk.Is were powered by imported de Havilland Gipsy Six Series II engines driving bracket-type propellers. However, the proposed Pengana Mk.IA failed to materialize when GM Holden production of the Gipsy Six was cancelled. [6] The Mk.IA contracts were transferred to Pengana Mk.IIs powered by imported American Menasco B6S Buccaneer engines. The Mk.IIs could be distinguished by their large 'barrel' type oil coolers installed on the belly just aft of the cowling. Alas, the Buccaneer's cooling problems would never be satisfactorily overcome.

The major production types would be the Pengana Mk.III pilot trainer and Mk.IV gunnery trainer. Both were powered by another imported American engine -  this time, the 200 hp Ranger 6-440C-5 six-cylinder. Recognition features were the simplified straight-edged vertical tail, unspatted main wheels, and relocated tailwheel. The gunnery Mk.IV could be distinguished from the Pengana Mk.III by the elimination of the rear glazing in favour of a gun ring. The projected Pengana Mk.V wireless trainer was not built (although surviving Pengana Mk.IIs were brought up to a similar standard in late 1943 to fill W/O training role).

Bottom Percival-Wicko Pengana Mk.III of No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School. This aircraft was written off after a hard landing at Tamworth, NSW, in October 1944. Note the fixed-pitch, Queensland Maple veneer propeller and revised tailfin shape.

The Percival-Wicko Pengana was well-regarded as an RAAF trainer. It handled well although a tendency to dip a wing on approach kept student pilots on their toes. And only the most ham-fisted of students could stall the Pengana. Its primarily wooden structure was a mixed blessing. [7] In a prang, that structure held together better than its fabric-covered contemporaries. But that also made Pengana somewhat heavy and more difficult to repair. Perhaps for those reasons, the last Pengana had been phased out of RAAF service but the beginning of 1947.

___________________________________________

[1] In 1936, Wikner had been hired to design an entirely original aircraft for Donald Marendaz - who offered design credit and shares in the profits once the prototype was built. Instead, Marendaz would publicly claim sole design credit for this Monoplane. Understandably, Wikner quit and Donald Marendaz - who lacked the needed skills - was unable to finish the project.

[2] Geoff Wikner had draughted the initial design for the PW.22 whilest still in England. At the time, it was called the Wikner Windsor. In its Percival-Wicko form, the type was to be offered in civilian sports trainer form as the PW.22C Pigeon (with optional coupé top) as well as the military PW.22M Walara.

[3] By comparison with the angled upper fuselage longerons of the Silver Gull, the PW.20's was parallel to the aircraft's thrust line.

[4] The canopy modernized the aircraft's appearance but the RAAF's actual concern had been the lack of a proper 'turn over' structure in the PW.20. This was mocked-up for the prototype but would not properly implemented until the production-model Pengana Mk.I.

[5] This registration was transferred from Shell Oil's Vega Gull (K.83, 'Spirit of Shell') which had been destroyed in a hangar fire at Essendon in February of 1939.

[6] This cancellation was to allow Holden's Fisherman's Bend engine plant to concentrate of building DH Gipsy Major 4-cylinders to powered the Bankstown-built DH.82A Tiger Moth biplane trainers.

[7] The primary structure was of pine - Hoop Pine for spars and longerons, Bunya Pine for ribs and stringers. Silver Quandong was used for mounting plates and the like. The skin was of carefully graded Queensland Maple plywood. Moveable surfaces were of fabric-covered welded steel tube (except for the flaps which were wooden).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 01, 2022, 02:10:20 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 04, 2022, 04:02:24 AM
As Greg noted in The Empire Strikes Back!, the 'Battle of the Río Grande' marked the highpoint of Canadian Forces participation in the Falklands conflict.

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10264.msg195603

The 409 'Night Hawk' Squadron CF-101Bs involved in the 'Battle of the Río Grande' were finished in the standard Canadian Voodoo Grey (FS 56515) scheme. But as the Falklands conflict wound down, the 'Night Hawks' were due to be replaced by 425 'Alouette' Squadron fighters. These 425 Sqn aircraft were resprayed in three-colour disruptive camouflages - one CF-101B being preserved at CFB Bagotville in this camouflage scheme (see attached).

The Voodoos of 425 'Alouette' Sqn were due to be joined by the CFB North Bay-based EF-101B 'Electric Voodoos' of 414 Sqn. The latter were to be repainted in all-over black for noctural operations (although it is not clear whether such finishes were ever applied).

In early 1985, Canadian Voodoos began to be replaced in squadron service by new CF-187 and CE-187 Tornados. Other than museum pieces and a few 'gate guardians', all Voodoos were returned to the USAF.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 20, 2022, 03:50:40 AM
From the final installment of Bill Shackleton and Tugan Aircraft Revived story.

If interested: https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10268.0
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 22, 2022, 10:26:22 AM
This was something I knocked together (from a Ronnie Bar B.E.2c profile) for a thread on Secret Projects:
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pre-ww1-possibilities.38727/#post-527780 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pre-ww1-possibilities.38727/#post-527780)

The idea was an RFC interceptor available in August 1914 capable of denying access to German recce aircraft of the day. Armament was an engine-driven machine gun.

Concept went over on SPF like excessively damp flatulence  :P
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 22, 2022, 10:27:09 AM
Taking up one of Robert's notions - combining the raised fuselage of the Spiteful with the wings from the Spitfire F.Mk.21 ... So, here is the first Castle Bromwich-built Spitfire F.Mk.23 (PK678) in postwar RAF colours.

(Based on a Richard J. Caruna profile of a Spitfire F.Mk.24.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on April 22, 2022, 10:44:20 AM
Is that F.23 using a Spiteful fuselage?  The cockpit seems raised a bit.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 22, 2022, 10:48:01 AM
Is that F.23 using a Spiteful fuselage?  The cockpit seems raised a bit.

Yup, exactly.

https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.msg195242#msg195242
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on April 22, 2022, 12:33:03 PM
Mmmmm.... what number would a Seafire have, much like Seafire 47 but with raised cockpit? 48?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 23, 2022, 02:44:51 AM
Concept went over on SPF like excessively damp flatulence  :P

I don't recall seeing it there.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on April 23, 2022, 04:56:54 AM
Taking up one of Robert's notions - combining the raised fuselage of the Spiteful with the wings from the Spitfire F.Mk.21 ... So, here is the first Castle Bromwich-built Spitfire F.Mk.23 (PK678) in postwar RAF colours.

(Based on a Richard J. Caruna profile of a Spitfire F.Mk.24.)

Oooooo!  noice!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 23, 2022, 07:24:46 AM
Cheers Robert.

I don't recall seeing it there.

It was in a thread called 'Pre WW1 possibilities' in the Alternative History and Future Speculation section. I went with a very conservative KISS approach but I think the general mood was for some kind of Über-weapon or advanced materials. Oh well ...
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pre-ww1-possibilities.38727/#post-527780 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/pre-ww1-possibilities.38727/#post-527780)

Mmmmm.... what number would a Seafire have, much like Seafire 47 but with raised cockpit? 48?

Yes, mustn't forget the Seafire FR.48!

(Based upon a Seafire FR.47 profile by Jumpei Temma.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on April 23, 2022, 03:02:58 PM
Seafire FR.48 looks right!
There's something really powerful looking about that nose, and the raised cockpit makes it look even more muscular.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 24, 2022, 02:13:01 AM
Seafire FR.48 looks right!
There's something really powerful looking about that nose, and the raised cockpit makes it look even more muscular.

Yep
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 24, 2022, 08:59:23 AM
And speaking of noses ... another go at a turboprop Spitfire.

________________________________________________________

The Supermarine Type 356PT (Propeller Turbine) testbed at the Rolls-Royce Flight Test Establishment, Hucknall Aerodrome, for RB.53 (later Dart) installation trials in the early Winter of 1947. The aircraft is shown prior to being fitted with its replacement tail unit (with dihedralled horizontal surfaces and much-enlarged vertical tail). The distinctive Attacker-style belly tank came even later.

The installed RDa.1 engine was much lighter than the piston Griffon but the turboprop produced only 1,250 shp (+ 300 lbf). In 'production conversion' form, the Spitfire F.24PT had the slightly more powerful RDa.3 which still only produced 1,400 shp (+ 350 lbf). However, this power was considered adequate for what had become a light strike aircraft rather than a fighter.

The 'Turbo-Spits' saw only brief action during the Malayan Emergency in late 1949-50. They were withdrawn from use in Operation Firedog when the de Havilland Vampires became operational in April 1950.

______________________________________________________

Again, based upon a Richard Caruna profile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 24, 2022, 11:13:34 AM
 :o :o :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 25, 2022, 01:47:38 AM
The "Cyrano de Bergerac" of Spitfires. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 25, 2022, 01:53:28 AM
Maybe give it one of the later RDa.10 variants giving 2500+hp...maybe they are left in Malaysia for use by the RMAF or even RSAF. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on April 25, 2022, 02:26:06 AM
You know Stephen, you probably don't need the turbo-prop so far out in front like that. Griffon Spitfires had up to 250lb of counter weight installed between the last two frames of the fuselage and just before the tail assembly joint (depending on what engine and prop combo was installed). Removing it all and then placing the turbo-prop in a position suitable would probable make it look a bit more eye-catching.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 25, 2022, 02:34:07 AM
Also, if you do go for the long nose or even longish nose, perhaps there is a need to also go for tricycle undercarriage
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 26, 2022, 08:01:09 AM
Also, if you do go for the long nose or even longish nose, perhaps there is a need to also go for tricycle undercarriage

I was going for a 'least-mod' turboprop Spitfire with no big changes aft of the firewall. But, you're right ... 'Pinocchio' here would be highly likely to end up on its nose!

You know Stephen, you probably don't need the turbo-prop so far out in front like that. Griffon Spitfires had up to 250lb of counter weight installed between the last two frames of the fuselage and just before the tail assembly joint (depending on what engine and prop combo was installed). Removing it all and then placing the turbo-prop in a position suitable would probable make it look a bit more eye-catching.

Thanks Robert, I'd forgotten about those counter-weights. I'm now thinking that the big limitation of that 'least-mod' approach is finding space for the exhaust. If moving the engine/exhaust aft involves a bunch of airframe changes, why not go back to your Spitfire/Spiteful hybrid? Hey, if we're modifying the fuselage anyway ...  :D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on April 26, 2022, 09:12:21 PM
Hmm! I like that  :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

I'll have to dig out the Cavalier Dart Mustang conversion I have and compare it with the Dart Dakota conversion I've got too, see if there's any difference to where the exhaust exits. On my Turbo-Sunderland I found I could shorten the Dart Dakota nacelles as you get them, quite a bit without changing the exhaust outlet location.

Well actually I did change the location, I turned it so it exited at the top  :-X , but in the second pic you can see the round disc which is where you're supposed to glue the exhaust nozzle to
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 28, 2022, 08:24:56 AM
I do like your turboprop Sunderland concept  :smiley:

Continuing on with the postwar Supermarine theme ...
________________________________________

Private Venture - The Supermarine Attacker

Supermarine designed its Type 392 'Jet Spiteful' to meet the experimental specification E.10/44. One prototype of this Rolls-Royce RB.41 Nene-powered attack type was ordered on 30 August 1944. Such was the urgency of wartime production and development at Supermarine that little design work had been completed on the Type 392 when the Air Ministry cancelled it in September 1945. Immediately, the Supermarine Design Department under Joe Smith began working up a replacement design.

The Drawing Office under Eric Lovell-Cooper was assigned the task of draughting the final design for this jet-powered Private Venture. One feature conditional to senior Vickers-Armstrong management approval was a switch to an 'in-house' engine - the Metrovick F.2/4 Beryl axial-flow turbojet. [1] The fuselage of this new Type 398 was similar to that of the cancelled Type 392 but stretched to balance the Beryl engine and new nosegear undercarriage. The wings and tailplane were entirely new.

The slightly-swept wings were clearly based upon recently-captured German research. Overall, the wing was similar to that of the German Me 262 but with a slightly greater leading edge sweep back of 22°. [2] The horizontal tailplane had an even great sweep angle (20°) although the vertical tail's sweep was more modest. All tail surfaces had typically Supermarine shapes with gracefully curved tips. This, then, was the form of the production Type 398N Attacker ordered for the Royal Navy as the Supermarine Attacker F.Mk.1 (there being no actual Type 398 prototype).

Top Supermarine Attacker F.Mk.1 on shipboard trials with the Royal Navy. Note the smaller original tail surfaces.

The Supermarine Attacker F.1 handled well in the air but had some stability challenges when landing on. [3] Directional issues were addressed through the design of an altogether larger tailplane. These surfaces were designed as bolt-on replacements for the F.1's tail. Once applied, the aircraft became Supermarine Attacker FB.Mk.1A fighter-bombers (the RN having reassessed appropriate roles). A similar fin and rudder were applied to the up-powered Attacker FB.2 variant. In the latter, the rudder was identical but a slight further increase in fin area was acheived by straightening out the fin's trailing edge.

Bottom Supermarine Attacker FB.Mk.2 in service with 800 NAS in August 1952. Note this variants straight fin trailing edge and raised fuselage 'spine' tapering from the rear of the sliding hood. Less obvious is the straight edges of the enlarged horizontal tail surfaces.

The Attacker FB.2 was eclipsed in regular service by the de Havilland Sea Venom mainly because the latter had a heavier fixed-gun armament. [4] However, the Attacker served on with Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve (RNVR) squadrons until finally being retired in 1959.

________________________________________________

[1] At 4,000 lbf, the Beryl produced less thrust than the RB.41 Nene but it also had less frontal area.

[2] The sweep angle of the German Messerschmitt fighter had been 18.5°.

[3] The F.1's vertical tailplane was already bigger than that designed for the original Type 382. However, the Type 398N's longer forward fuselage demanded surfaces which were larger still.

[4] All Attackers were armed with a pair of 20 mm Hispano V cannons - initially judged to be adequate for a ground attack aircraft. As a fighter, Supermarine had hoped to arm its Type 398 with a pair of the 30 mm ADEN guns. However, that  revolver cannon was destined not to reach operation use until 1954.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on April 29, 2022, 10:58:21 AM
Now in this scenario the Attacker was designed around a different, axial flow engine.  Was the fuselage a different diameter?  I gather the fuselage was lengthened forward of the wing.  How much was it lengthened?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 29, 2022, 03:40:50 PM
Remember that part of the klugey long schnozze appearance of the Cavalier Turbo-Mustang III was down
to the location of the firewall on a P-51, the Spitfire firewall location is better in aesthetic terms. The P-51
was always going to have that slapped onto the front look without the redesign of the PA-48.

Rda.10 Darts are 99.5" long and weigh over 620 kg (1,366 to 1,377 lbs depending on exact setup).

p.s. there's also no need to slavishly duplicate the Viscount nacelle when adding a Dart.  ;)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/cf/d5/99cfd58498c15432e391bffc2957d5ff.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5jFfjFxCMAY/maxresdefault.jpg)

(http://soyuyo.main.jp/p51a/p51b_cross.gif)

(http://soyuyo.main.jp/spitd/19side.gif)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 30, 2022, 05:26:47 AM
Great stuff, Jon. Thanks!

p.s. there's also no need to slavishly duplicate the Viscount nacelle when adding a Dart...

Unless Vickers-Armstrong senior management was breathing down your neck for 'in-house' economies  :o

Now in this scenario the Attacker was designed around a different, axial flow engine.  Was the fuselage a different diameter? ...

No, the fuselage was the same diameter as RW. It could have been at least 10 inches smaller in diameter. However, as a private venture, the Design Department was restricted to re-using work already done for the Type 392 'Jet Spiteful'.

... I gather the fuselage was lengthened forward of the wing.  How much was it lengthened?

Yes, the forward fuselage was lengthened - about 30 inches - to accommodate and position the new nose gear. However, the rear fuselage length was also reduced (both for balance and to shorten the jet pipe). So, overall length of this alternative Attacker was only ~14 inches greater than RW (ie: around 38 feet 8 inches).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on April 30, 2022, 06:26:48 AM
Here's Sheet 1 of Cook's Mk.XIV drawings showing internals, it may help in figuring out where
you can attach a Dart.  ;)
Image is 4549 × 6535 at 300 resolution.

I have all four sheets in a single 4.3MB if you want a copy, just PM me your email.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52038815573_2435a21768_o.png)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2022, 05:46:13 AM
Great stuff ... thanks Jon. Downloaded for future reference  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2022, 11:11:36 AM
I've been playing with the C-123 Provider ...

For those who aren't familiar, the origins and development of the type are fascinating. This brings up the question: why did Fairchild never update the Provider into the turboprop age? Turns out, they tried.

In the early '60s, Fairchild put forward its M-541 STOL 'Tactical Airlift Transport' proposal. The USAF was interested - the type would have become the C-123L in service. But, for budgetary reasons, it never happened. And it that wasn't a 'what if' lead in, I don't what is!

I've also been pondering Private Venture designs lately. So, could a 'PV' have nudged the C-123L into reality? The M-541 was to have been a fairly major modification - with a broader fuselage, wider main undercarriage, and combined turboprop and booster jet propulsion - GE T64s and J85s. A tricky bit for a turboprop conversion is that the C-123's fuel was held in tanks in the engine nacelles - not within the wings. So, I'm thinking that the 'PV' would be a simplified demonstrator - basically just a C-123B with its R-2800s replaced by turboprops.

Top Fairchild M-541 (USAF XC-123L) Super Provider conversion with twin 2,850 shp T64-GE-4 turbines. Note that the wing 'drop tanks' were the M-541 demonstrator's sole source of fuel.

With the M-541 turboprop conversion successfully demonstrated, Fairchild received an official USAF evaluation. The first criticism was that the aircraft was underpowered and booster engines on a 'new' design were not seen as desirable. The second was the lack of any form of weather radar - essentially for an unpressurized aircraft destined to fly through the weather rather than over it. Fairchild had already planned to introduce radar but the power situation was more serious. This led to the more powerful M-541M concept.

The prototype XC-123L was quickly modified to take much larger, 4,050 shp Allison T56-A-7 turboprops housed in Lockheed C-130B nacelles. This was an ad hoc arrangement which brought the propellers dangerously close to the cabin door. Meanwhile, redesign work began on a revised Super Provider airframe with a stretched forward fuselage and an enlarged tailplane. A completely new main undercarriage was also introduced - retracting into distinctive 'sponsons' bulging from the fuselage sides.

The new main undercarriage arrangement achieved two goals. First was a wider wheel track for extra stability on the ground. Second was the elimination of the Provider's interior wheel bays which impinged upon the cargo hold by almost three feet. The remaining 110 inch space was the same width as the hydraulically-operated loading ramp. However, with the sponson arrangement, consistent broad aisles were available on either side of the planned load of three standard 463L pallets. That load would fit because of a modest fuselage stretch which, in turn had been dictated by engine weight. The new turboprops were 840 lbs lighter that the original R-2800-99W radials. To restore c/g, another bay was inserted into the forward fuselage - adding 32 inches to cargo hold length.

With these changes incorporated, the Fairchild  M-541M Super Provider was born. The new engines, undercarriage sponsons, enlarged tailplane, and 'radar nose' gave the M-541M a rather different appearance. However, under the skin, there were fewer changes than original proposed for the M-541. The fuselage cross-section remained unchanged - with the wheel well bays removed from the hold, there was no longer any need for a wider cabin. On the advice of USAF evaluators, the complexities of blown flaps was also avoided - the C-123M now being seen as a straightforward 'Tactical Airlift Transport' rather than a STOL performer.

Bottom Fairchild  M-541M Super Provider - DOD designation YC-123M - the T56-powered successor to the XC-123L and C-123K fleets.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on May 01, 2022, 05:29:24 PM


([url]http://soyuyo.main.jp/spitd/19side.gif[/url])


Can I ask where you get these scale drawings from as I am after a source of decent drawings for late Spitfires and, well, just about anything.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on May 01, 2022, 06:55:22 PM
Can I ask where you get these scale drawings from as I am after a source of decent drawings for late Spitfires and, well, just about anything.
Those are drawings by Jumpei Temma of Japan. There is more at http://soyuyo.main.jp/top2.htm (http://soyuyo.main.jp/top2.htm)

Dont' let the Japanese texts scare you. The drawings enlarge nicely when you click them, or the link that he sometimes puts below the small image.

For late Spitfires/Seafires, start at http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit47/spit47-1.html (http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit47/spit47-1.html)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 02, 2022, 09:50:23 AM
The provider profiles look great, apophenia. I've always liked the Provider in all it's many forms. To my knowledge, it's the only aircraft to have flown in glider, piston, all-jet, combination, and turboprop configurations.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on May 02, 2022, 05:33:05 PM
Can I ask where you get these scale drawings from as I am after a source of decent drawings for late Spitfires and, well, just about anything.
Those are drawings by Jumpei Temma of Japan. There is more at [url]http://soyuyo.main.jp/top2.htm[/url] ([url]http://soyuyo.main.jp/top2.htm[/url])

Dont' let the Japanese texts scare you. The drawings enlarge nicely when you click them, or the link that he sometimes puts below the small image.

For late Spitfires/Seafires, start at [url]http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit47/spit47-1.html[/url] ([url]http://soyuyo.main.jp/spit47/spit47-1.html[/url])


A Fabulous resource - thanks for the link :)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 03, 2022, 05:07:14 AM
Thanks Logan.

... To my knowledge, it's the only aircraft to have flown in glider, piston, all-jet, combination, and turboprop configurations...

Yup. And almost as dramatically, the undercarriage variations - fixed (XG-20?), semi-retractable (YC-122), fully-retractable (C-123), and the wonderfully bonkers Pantobase (YC-134A).

I do wonder what the Provider's fate would have been had Fairchild addressed some of its major shortcomings a bit earlier - especially 'wet' wings in place of those nacelle tanks and a wider track main undercarriage. Stroukoff was heading towards more STOL performance but I doubt that was what the USAF was looking for. Probably the C-123's lack of cabin pressurization was what really killed further development.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 03, 2022, 10:29:45 AM
Yup. And almost as dramatically, the undercarriage variations - fixed (XG-20?), semi-retractable (YC-122), fully-retractable (C-123), and the wonderfully bonkers Pantobase (YC-134A).

I do wonder what the Provider's fate would have been had Fairchild addressed some of its major shortcomings a bit earlier - especially 'wet' wings in place of those nacelle tanks and a wider track main undercarriage. Stroukoff was heading towards more STOL performance but I doubt that was what the USAF was looking for. Probably the C-123's lack of cabin pressurization was what really killed further development.

There were so many good tactical transports in the '50s, but I think what really killed most of them was the inspired greatness and continued evolution of the C-130 that is ongoing even today. I love the idea of evolved C-123s (among others in the era), but the C-130 looks even more certain in hindsight than it clearly did to the procurement officers in the 1950s and '60s.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 04, 2022, 02:09:41 AM
There were so many good tactical transports in the '50s, but I think what really killed most of them was the inspired greatness and continued evolution of the C-130 that is ongoing even today.

Agreed - it is interesting to speculate about what may have resulted if the superlative C-130 hadn't been created.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 04, 2022, 05:23:57 AM
There were so many good tactical transports in the '50s, but I think what really killed most of them was the inspired greatness and continued evolution of the C-130 that is ongoing even today.

Agreed - it is interesting to speculate about what may have resulted if the superlative C-130 hadn't been created.

Agreed x 2. And many of those twin-engined '50s transports were directly replaced by 4-engined C-130s (eg: RCAF going from C-119G to C-130B). So, was there any remaining market for twins?

I've always liked the idea of a twin-engined 'Short Herc' (maybe in a related scenario, Fairchild nailing together Lockheed-supplied parts). But, if reality raised its ugly head, would any air force actually be willing to buy half a Hercules? Note sure.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 04, 2022, 11:06:28 AM
The Caribou had a role that most military/air forces are using "work around"s for, largely because the number of times they need those specific flight characteristics doesn't justify the expense of keeping a similar aircraft on the books.

Aren't too many aircraft, not even the Herc, that can approach at as steep an angle & stop in as short a distance as the ol' 'Bou. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 05, 2022, 02:45:08 AM
Plenty of inspiration here:

(https://www.crecy.co.uk/images/9781910809167.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on May 05, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
 ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on May 05, 2022, 03:24:53 AM
So, was there any remaining market for twins?

I've always liked the idea of a twin-engined 'Short Herc' (maybe in a related scenario, Fairchild nailing together Lockheed-supplied parts). But, if reality raised its ugly head, would any air force actually be willing to buy half a Hercules? Note sure.

The Caribou had a role that most military/air forces are using "work around"s for, largely because the number of times they need those specific flight characteristics doesn't justify the expense of keeping a similar aircraft on the books.

Aren't too many aircraft, not even the Herc, that can approach at as steep an angle & stop in as short a distance as the ol' 'Bou. :smiley:

It's been tried about a hundred times since WWII and has never really been too successful on a large scale. You could make the claim that the Caribou, Buffalo, An-26, An-32, CN-235, C-295, or C-27J are Dakota replacements in the sub-C-130 weight class, but none of them has ever had the level of market saturation that the C-47 achieved.

When it comes to civil fleets, the DC-3 size airliner gradually grew until eventually the market seems to have settled on the 737 and A320 for the backbone of their fleets.

Most military users scaled up similarly, just going with the C-130 as the most efficient airlifter in the past 50 years.

If someone is looking for a C-47 successor in the sub-C-130 space, I think there are two twin-engine aircraft that fit the bill pretty well. In "first world" countries, that would be the CH-47 Chinook, while in most of Southern and Eastern Hemispheres, it's the Mi-8/17 "Hip" family. It might seem heretical, but when you look how they're used and the their capabilities, it's clear that militaries just don't use fixed wing transport aircraft in large numbers at the tactical level anymore.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: finsrin on May 05, 2022, 07:02:04 AM
Cover art on book is awesome  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on May 06, 2022, 08:59:29 AM
JetBox ?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on May 13, 2022, 12:53:20 PM
Plenty of inspiration here:

(https://www.crecy.co.uk/images/9781910809167.jpg)

That certainly looks tail heavy enough.

Why did Queen's "Fat Bottom Girls" just start playing in my head?...."
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on May 14, 2022, 12:03:44 AM
It uses the rather rare "Nose Dragger" landing gear configuration.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 22, 2022, 08:59:09 AM
This one started as an idea for the Maritime Patrol GB but morphed into something off-topic ...

'Canopus' - A South Atlantic Comet Story

At the start of the 1982 Falklands Conflict, Fuerza Aérea Argentina Boeing 707s seemed to lead a charmed life. In the last two weeks of April alone, FAA recce/elint 707-387Cs TC-91 and TC-92 were both intercepted a number of times by Sea Harrier fighters. But, on each occasion, RN pilots were denied permission to fire on the Argie reconnaissance jets. But it became obvious that the 707s were leading FAA attack aircraft to the Royal Navy formations and orders changed. On 22 May, HMS Bristol and HMS Cardiff both fired Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles at TC-92. Those four missiles missed TC-92 but the FAA now 'on notice'.

Early on, there had been a random inflight encounter between an RAF Nimrod MR2 and an Argie 707. Thereafter, the RAF decided to arm its deployed MR2s with Sidewinder missiles from pylons on the Nimrods' otherwise unused wing hardpoints. An interim 'fix' was also adopted to forward-deploy the A&AEE's missile-test de Havilland Comet 4C. This aircraft - Comet XS235 'Canopus' (c/n 6473) - had been testing HS Red Top air-to-air missiles from an underbelly fairing (which also mounted its Ferranti AI.23 Airpass targeting radar). Loaded with older, surplus Firestreak IR-seeking AAMs, XS235 was despatched to Wideawake Airfield on Ascension Island with orders to actively hunt Argentine long-range aircraft.

Both Firestreak and the more modern US Sidewinder were rear-aspect infrared-guided missiles. Whereas an ongoing supply of the US missiles was uncertain at this juncture, the British Firestreak was readily available. But the aged Firestreak also had another blandishment. The AIM-9L was best employed against an unaware target from no more than 1.85 miles (3 km) out. By contrast, Firestreak could be realistically fired from as much as 4 miles (6.4 km) range. As far as RAF intel knew, the FAA 707s carried no active countermeasures in form of chaff or, more importantly here, IR flares. But this would be no 'turkey shoot'. The Boeing 707 had a 100 mph speed advantage over the British Nimrods and Comet.

Gun Runners - Intercepting Arms-Carrying Cargo Aircraft

By this stage, the vulnerability of its 707s was apparent to the FAA and the recce/elint Boeings were being steered well away from the British Task Force. In the meantime, however, other 707s of the national carrier - Aerolíneas Argentinas - were known to be returning from Israel with loads of weapons. But no offensive moves were made against the Aerolíneas Argentinas Boeings. These were civilian-registered airliners, after all - no matter the nature of their cargo. But the Fuerza Aérea Argentina’s third 707-387C - the cargo door-fitted TC-93 - was judged a valid military target.

TC-93 had just flown to Libya to collect weaponry gifted to Argentina by Colonel Gaddafi. The 707 had routed through Recife in Brazil enroute to Tripoli. British intelligence were able to confirm that, among TC-93's collected load of weapons were Soviet SA-7 MANPADS destined for las Malvinas. By comparison with the Blowpipe SAM used by both sides in the Falklands, the SA-7 Grail was light and handy. If deployed by the Ejército Argentino at Port Stanley, these lightweight, shoulder-launched SAMs would be a game-changer. This could not be allowed to happen.

Predicting that TC-93 would retrace its steps back to Recife, standing RAF patrols were established. Circling 1,000 km ENE of Recife, missile-armed Nimrods and the Comet 'Canopus' traded turns waiting to pounce. It was a Nimrod MR2P which first detected TC-93 but wiring problems rendered both of its Sidewinder missiles inoperable. Instead, 'Canopus' was directed onto the target by the Nimrod. The Argentine aircraft had already initiated its descent into REC (Guararapes Airport at Recife). Having already passed through 25,000 feet, the FAA flight crew had throttled back to slow their rate of descent. Even still, the 'Canopus' pilot had to begin a shallow dive from 31,000 feet just to catch up with the speedier Boeing. At 35 miles out, the ASOp located the 707 with the pannier's AI.23 Airpass set and locked on.

At an IAS of over 550 mph, the WSO aboard 'Canopus' loosed the first Firestreak. It was a 'miss' but the FAA crew were now alerted and veered violently to port. The second Firestreak functioned perfectly. As TC-93 jinked left, the second Firestreak struck its No.4 engine and detonated. The ruined JT3 turbojet parted company with its pylon and drew a flaming arc downwards. TC-93 continued a hard roll to port until its damaged starboard wing folded just beyond its outboard pylon. The striken 707 plunged through cloud-cover at 15,000 feet - those clouds briefly illuminated by fierce flames spewing from its ruptured fuel tanks. Although unobserved directly by its British pursuers, the doomed TC-93 and its armaments cargo came down in the South Atlantic approximately 650 km ENE of Recife. At 7:25 am GMT, 'Canopus' radioed RAF Ascension Island control with the terse message “Splash one Tagine" - the agreed-upon code for Libyan transport down. [1]

"I am a lonely hunter that hunts on a lonely hill ..."

Its downing of TC-93 secured the reputation of 'Canopus' - forever now the 'Killer Comet' in the press. However, the aged 'Canopus' was also a stand-alone type sitting at the end of a very long supply chain. Invariably, she was plagued with maintenance issues. However, the hunt for the remaining FAA 707s had intensified and 'Canopus' had to soldier on. Two days after the downing of TC-93, 'Canopus' was aloft, once again circling off the coast of South America. This time the intended victims were the 707 recce aircraft. And there was a lure. The Argentines had received planted reports from Uruguayan sources of the British fleet replenishment ship, RFA Fort Grange, sailing alone off the Río de la Plata. In fact, this vessel was a container ship mocked up to resemble the general outline of the Fort Grange. But it did the trick.

Following their intelligence lead, the FAA sent up TC-91 to search for this British ship. And the Argentine crew were able to spot the 'Fort Grange' through a gap in the clouds as she sailing south off of Buenos Aires. Fortunately, those same clouds would then hamper the FAA Canberras sent to attack the supposed British fleet replenishment ship. Alas, these clouds also thwarted the RAF 'interceptors' sent to close the decoy trap. Neither Nimrod MR2P nor armed Comet were able to detect - let alone intercept - TC-91 over the decoy ship. 'Canopus' then lost an engine on return to Ascension and had to limp home on three. A replacement Avon was flown in by RAF Hercules but the Comet's mechanical problems were compounding.

That Río de la Plata flight would prove to be the last combat mission for 'Canopus'. At the beginning of June, she was flown home to Boscombe Down. The Falklands Conflict ended two weeks later. It was hoped that 'Canopus' would be fully airworthy again in time for the flypast scheduled for the London Victory Parade held on 12 October 1982. That was not to be. 'Canopus' had done her bit. She now seemed quite determined to remain on the ground.

(Fin)
_________________________________

[1] Tagine is a traditional Libyan dish of minced lamb in spiced tomato sauce. Perhaps a 'making a hash' reference?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 23, 2022, 12:27:34 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 26, 2022, 07:35:22 AM
De Havilland Comet Inflight Refuellers Down Under - Part One

By the early 1950s, there was a demand for larger and faster transport aircraft for the RAAF. The piston-engined Vickers Valetta had been rejected as an insufficient advance over the war surplus Douglas A65 Dakotas. Senior government officials had taken to using chartered Qantas airliners for overseas state business. However, the Office of the Prime Minister was desirous of a prestigious VIP transport for the RAAF. Despite its calamitous introduction into service, no contemporary transport aircraft had the cachet of the British de Havilland DH.106 Comet jetliner.

In 1955, the Prime Minster - Sir Robert Menzies - and his Cabinet were still riding high on their unexpected 1954 election victory (with some of the credit going to the defection of Soviet spy, Vladimir Petrov). The economy was doing well and the coming 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne encouraged a growing international spirit in Australia. Still, it was thought politically prudent to emphasize roles other than government VIP transport for the planned Comet jetliner procurement.

When the question of alternative roles was put to RAAF planners, the recommendation probably came as a complete surprise to officials in the Federal Capital. Outside of air force circles, the practice of air-to-air refuelling was all but unknown at the time. Yet that was the primary role being suggested for Australia's Comets. A fleet of four aircraft was suggested with fittings for under-fuselage pods on all Comets. Two of these airframes would mount under-belly tanks and equipment for the inflight refuelling (IFR) of RAAF CA-27 Sabre jet fighters. The other two Comets could fly 'slick' or have belly cargo pods fitted (considered especially useful when trooping).

Servos in the Skies - the Flying Bowsers

For the IFR role, the ventral pannier was divided into three main sections. At the 'nose' of the pannier was a shuttered intake for the ram-air fuel pumps. At the tail end was the Hose and Drogue Unit - an Inflight Refuelling Ltd Mk.16A HDU. [1] In the large centre-section of the pannier were tanks for the transferable fuel. Aft of this pannier was a fixed viewing station for the HDU operator (which was incorporated into the fuselage pressure hull). The actual 'para-drogue' filled the aft end of the ventral pannier when reeled in. For inflight refuelling, the para-drogue could extend the full length of the HDU's 80 foot (24 m) hose.

In their intended IFR role, the Comets served primarily as 'petrol bowsers' for RAAF Sabres. But the Comets also acted as 'mothen hens' - escorting the single-seat fighters for the full length of their journey while providing navigation and longer-range comms for the entire formation. On a typical mission, the IFR Comet and fighters would meet at RAAF Base Darwin. Taking off together, the mixed formation would cross the Timor Sea, then often follow a circuitous route over the Flores and Java Seas to avoid Indonesian airspace. With such routing, the air distance from RAAF Darwin to Singapore-Changi was 2,200 miles (3,570 km). This dictated fighters refuelling north of Timor, again north of Bali, and for a third time off the SW coast of Kalimantan.

Image De Havilland DH.106 Comet Mk.4CR of No. 33 Squadron, RAAF Base Richmond, August 1957. Note the ventral refuelling 'pack' and rear IFR Operator's viewing station. Comet A87-101 was one of the first RAAF aircraft to sport the new 'kangaroo in motion' roundel. [2] The No. 33 Squadron emblem is displayed on the tail fin. [3] The full No. 33 badge was displayed on the forward fuselage aft of the cockpit windows.

(to be continued ...)
______________________________________________________

[1] This HDU was identical to the Mk.XVI then being fitted to RAF Victor bombers - other than in having its retractable housing deleted.

[2] The 'Red Roo Roundel' was officially adopted July 1956 - but only for the fuselage sides. As here on Comet A87-101, the four wing roundels would remain 'RAF' style for almost another decade.

[3] Only the two IFR-dedicated aircraft carried the No. 33 Squadron emblem on their fins. Appropriate to carrying Australia's senior ministers and other dignitaries, the VIP transports featured the Commonwealth Coat of Arms on their fins.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 27, 2022, 12:53:35 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 27, 2022, 02:59:51 AM
De Havilland Comet Inflight Refuellers Down Under - Part Two

From Singapore-Changi, RAAF fighters could readily deploy to forward bases during the final years of the 'Malayan Emergency'. In the opening phases of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, RAAF Sabres re-deployed to the Royal Thai Air Force Base Ubon. By this stage in the early '60s, the aging Comets had lost their cachet as VIP transports. Well-used Comet A87-101 was retired and sold off. [1] But the remaining three No. 33 Squadron Comets could now be dedicated to IFR and trooping. But, to the surprise of all, inflight refuelling by Comets would play a critical role in RAAF operations in South Vietnam.

In December 1967, it was decided to forward-deploy Sabres at Vung Tau in the Republic of Vietnam to support the 1st Australian Task Force in Phuoc Tuy province. The Sabres were operating in high heat and humidity, while often carrying heavy ground-attack ordnance. Whenever possible, the RAAF fighter took off 'light' and refuelled enroute to targets. Two Comets would trade off doing circuits over SE Vietnam to top-up the Sabres. [2] The pace was relentless. By the beginning of 1970, both the Sabres and the Comets were withdrawn from Vietnam. Having played essential roles in supporting 1 ATF on the ground, both aircraft fleets were worn out. The last Sabre was retired in 1971. The Comets lingered on in storage at RAAF Base Woomera until August 1975 when the surviving trio were sold for scrap.

Image De Havilland DH.106 Comet Mk.4CR of No. 33 Squadron, RTAF Base Ubon, eastern Thailand, December 1967. Inset is a probed CA-27 Sabre Mk.33 fighter. Note the tropical fading of the Sabre's camouflage by comparison with Comet A87-102's newly applied paintwork.

In common with most other RAAF aircraft deployed to SE Asia, large black serials have been applied to the rear fuselage. [3] This dictated the unusual moving of the Australian roundel forward (almost to the nose). An Australian flag is displays above the fin flash but the camouflaged Comets carried few other markings.

______________________________________________

[1] This sale, in part helped provide funds for the purchase of an ex-Qantas Boeing 707-138B. The appropriately-named 'City of Canberra' (VH-EBC, c/n 17698) was returned to Boeing in October 1961. At Renton, she was refitted for the government VIP role and returned to Australia in February 1962.

[2] A third IFR Comet was always kept in reserve in Australia - while usually also undergoing maintenance and repair to keep the overworked RAAF Comet fleet airborne.

[3] The camouflaged Sabres were also exceptional in this. In contrast to the deployed Comets, Canberras, and Caribous, the Sabres worn their 'last three' numerals on their noses. Their roundels remained on the rear fuselage.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 27, 2022, 08:30:02 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 07, 2022, 09:25:52 AM
Over in the Maritime Patrol GB, Jonesthetank mentioned the Blackburn Botha.

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10349.0

For some, inexplicable reason, I have a soft spot for the Blackburn Botha. No question that this was a dog of an aircraft (much of that attributable to the specification bloat leading to M.10/36). The question is: was there any potential for improvement?

Bottom: "There's no substitute for horsepower!" A basic B.26 Botha airframe re-engined with higher-powered Bristol Hercules twin-row radials. The larger propellers would necessitate a broader wing centre-section for clearance. I've also extended the outboard wing panels. A beefier undercarriage is fitted and the forward fuselage extended (to improve all-around visibility from the cockpit).

Less obvious is the enlarged rudder - which had a deeper chord than the original B.26 Botha. This aircraft also has the 'North Sea' mod - replacing the Frazer-Nash FN7 dorsal turret with a 4-gunned Boulton-Paul 'A' unit (made surplus by the cancellation of the Blackburn Roc turret fighter.

Top: A more extreme  modification of the B.26 Botha airframe. The wing is of the original size but now centre-mounted on the fuselage. The powered turret has been removed to reduce weight and to lessen drag. The navigator's position has been move aft, allowing the 'Nav' to operate one of two Vickers GO guns in Sunderland Mk.I style dorsal stations.

The vertical tailplane has been moved forward ... but just for fun and to look more Blackburn-y.

NB: These sideviews are based on an original profile done by Simon Glancey in 2003.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jonesthetank on June 07, 2022, 04:22:38 PM
Nice!

Like the idea of adding the BP turret in place of the original FN one, hadn't thought of that on my profile.

Cheers

Mark
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 11, 2022, 08:32:01 AM
Something I did for the Secret Projects Forum ... a retouch of a Julio López Caeiro profile to show an Hispano Aviación-built Republican D.XXI powered by a Soviet Shvetsov M-25 driving a VFSh-6 propeller. Armament was to be four ShKas machine guns - I have assumed 2 x synchronized cowl guns and 2 x wing-mounted guns.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fokker-d-xxi-projets-and-derivatives.3514/page-2#post-536935 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fokker-d-xxi-projets-and-derivatives.3514/page-2#post-536935)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 12, 2022, 01:16:28 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 16, 2022, 08:21:41 AM
The Maritime Patrol GB - https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?board=103.0 - is proving very lively  :smiley:

I've decided to post links to my submissions for the Group Build. Roughly in alphabetical order, they are ...

Aérospatiale Autan (Sud-Est Caravelle conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg197739#msg197739

Airbus CP-150A Arcturus II - Airbus A310F/CC-150 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10311.0

Airbus A318 SAF-MR - Airbis A318 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg197852#msg197852

Avro Anglesey MP1A - BAe 146 variant
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10296.0

Bombardier CRJ-EAM Boreales - Canadair Regional Jet conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198692#msg198692

Bombardier CP-244C Global Patrol - Bombardier BD-700-1A10 derivative
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198351#new

Convairs - Canadair CP-109 Cosmos & IAI-Convair 240N Cormorant/Kurmorn
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198544#msg198544

Convairs -  Marineflieger Convair 640-68 SAF-MR Baltik - 340-68 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198604#msg198604

Douglas Digby Mk.II - RCAF Douglas B-18 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10357.0
- RAAF Douglas B-18 conversions
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10357.msg197988#msg197988
- USAAC Douglas DB-1 prototype conversion (75 mm M1898 + nose radar)
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10357.msg198142#msg198142

Hastings is a Seaside Town ... - HP Hastings C.2 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10307.0

Hindustan Aeronautics HAL 748-SG - HSA HS.748 conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198274#msg198274

IAI Yanshuf-M - Maritime Patrol Fouga/Tzukit conversion
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10365.msg198387#msg198387

Lockheed P-7K2 Ventura II - Lockheed P-3K2 Orion evolution
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198749#msg198749

Saab L 27/S 27A - Twin-engined Saab S 17SB
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10365.msg198122#msg198122

Shin-Meiwa US-2/DHC-7 Dash 7 scale-o-rama
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10365.0

Canso: A Stranraer Story - Supermarine Stranraer variant
-- Argie: https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10302.0
-- RCAF : https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10302.msg196922#msg196922

SNCASE SE 206M Pacifique - French DH Comet-based MPA
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10329.0

Vickers Varsity MRT (Maritime Reconnaissance Trainer)
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg197784#msg197784

Canadair-Vickers CP-140/CP-140A - Vanguard variant
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198311#msg198311

Canadair/Vickers CP-152A Victoria - 'Patrol Vanguard'
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10341.msg198236#msg198236
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 28, 2022, 08:24:41 AM
This started off as a notion for the Maritime Patrol GB that didn't pan out. The MPA was going to be a further evolution of the Ju 188H-2 with fuselage stretches inspired by the Ju 88H. It didn't work, so I bailed ...

Anyway, I modified that 'Ju 188H-4' concept into another whif evolution of the Ju 188. I have no idea what the abandoned RW Ju 188M long-range reconnaissance project was to look like. But I decided that my Ju 188M would originally be a mixture of Ju 188 and Ju 388 features.

Bottom Surrendered Junkers Ju 188M-0 pre-production machine during its evaluation as TS474 by 1426 (Enemy Aircraft) Flight RAF. Trials at Farnborough revealed the design weakness inherit in the FA 15 tail barbette and its PVE 11 periscopic sight. The BMW 801TJ engines also proved unreliable.

The production Ju 188M-1 was based on the Ju 188E airframe, dispensing with the troublesome FA 15 barbette and adopting more readily-available BMW 801G radials. The drag-inducing top turret was eliminated in favour of a more Ju 88-like rear guns arrangement. This defensive armament was regarded as inadequate by operational Luftwaffe units. When Luftwaffe Aufklärer shifted to Ju 388Ls, the Ju 188Ms were passed on to the Kriegsmarine.

Top A naval Ju 188M-1 of 2./Aufklärungsgruppe (F)131 (See) based at Pillau-Neutief in East Prussia. This aircraft is in full post-Juli Plot markings - greyed-out Schwarzes Kreuze and 'Diamant dreifarbig' on the fin. Junkers 4F+UN was lost to Soviet fighters off Memel in January 1946.

___________________________

BTW, these sideviews began life as a Ju 88G profile by Herbert Ringlstette. Why the odd-ball markings? Just not in the mood right now for any Nazi Scheißen ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 28, 2022, 10:47:57 PM
I've got a book called 'War Prizes', there's hundreds of photos of Air Ministry numbers on captured aircraft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2022, 01:38:39 AM
I like the idea of "post-Juli Plot markings"
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 29, 2022, 04:23:15 AM
Thanks Greg. Some time back, I started working on an alternative 'Kesselring Plot'. Maybe I'll get back to that storyline at some point ...

I've got a book called 'War Prizes', there's hundreds of photos of Air Ministry numbers on captured aircraft.

Ooo, that would've been handy! I was just making up markings from memory  :-[

I'm not sure what the RW serial iTS474' was applied to. But TS472 was a captured Ju 88S-1 so, I figured, close enough  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2022, 04:31:58 AM
I like the idea of "post-Juli Plot markings"

Some fighters in similar markings would be interesting.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 29, 2022, 04:33:15 AM

I've got a book called 'War Prizes', there's hundreds of photos of Air Ministry numbers on captured aircraft.

Ooo, that would've been handy! I was just making up markings from memory  :-[

I'm not sure what the RW serial iTS474' was applied to. But TS472 was a captured Ju 88S-1 so, I figured, close enough  ;)

Written by Phil Butler, IIRC I got my copy through Air-Britain but they're available on the internet by the looks of it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on June 29, 2022, 04:36:08 AM
This is the book:

(https://www.maremagnum.com/uploads/item_image/image/711/prizes-illustrated-survey-german-italian-15cebf69-dda1-45b2-9815-0de11c187be4.jpeg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 29, 2022, 04:38:41 AM
Yup!

Depending on the results for my last medical test I have to have done, will decide if I'll have to find some good homes for my book collection
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on June 29, 2022, 06:55:32 AM
Just imagine the Allies having to use some of the captured aircrafts for frontline use - or in Top Gun-style military trainings.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 29, 2022, 07:51:03 AM
Depending on the results for my last medical test I have to have done, will decide if I'll have to find some good homes for my book collection

Whoa! That sounds grim Robert  :o  Fingers crossed (twice)!

Some fighters in similar markings would be interesting.

Hmm ... might have to move on some post-Juli Plot Messerschmitts and Doras ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on June 30, 2022, 03:51:51 AM
Depending on the results for my last medical test I have to have done, will decide if I'll have to find some good homes for my book collection

Whoa! That sounds grim Robert  :o  Fingers crossed (twice)!


Just got a call from the clinic I have to go to, I'll find out next week on July 7th. It's a 2 hour test ----
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 06, 2022, 04:17:04 AM
Some fighters in similar markings would be interesting.

Not the same markings ... I concluded that the Schwarze Kreuze were premature. Instead, I've gone with a USAAF-style roundel with a white Balkankreuze replacing the US star.

_________________________________________

Nach dem Juli-Plot - Focke Wulfs

As Bundesluftwaffe fighter-interceptors, all 'Langnasen' Focke Wulfs were gathered together in Jagdgeswader 30 under Major Günther Rall. [1] The JG 30 Fw 190Ds and Ta 152Hs took on a top-cover role for the JaBos - usually Fw 190Gs but sometimes Bf 109s as well.

Initially, Bundesluftwaffe fighters wore their previous camouflage scheme overmarked with post Juli-Plot national markings. New and refurbished aircraft were delivered to units stripped to natural metal before covering in clear lacquer finish. Flight controls (and the wooden tail surfaces of Ta 152Hs and Bf 109Ks) were covered in silver dope. In most cases, an anti-glare panel was applied in front of the windscreen - in RLM 83 dunkelgrün or, occasionally, RLM 70 schwartzgrün.

Top Focke Wulf Ta 152H-1n of 1./JG 30 flown by Oberfeldwebel Helmut Zander. [2] At the time, elements of 1./JG 30 were stationed in western Lithuania at Feldflugplatz Eigirdziai - 60 km west of Schaulen (Šiauliai). Note that this aircraft has yet to have its underwing OstFront bands applied.

The 'n' suffix in the Ta 152H-1n designation stood for neue Produktion - indicating a post-collapse assembly from available components at Focke Wulf's Sorau plant.

Bottom Focke Wulf Fw 190D-9 flown by Leutnant Arnold Döring once 2./JG 30 had moved north back into Latvia. While operating from Flugplatz Dünaburg (Daugavpils), 180 km southeast of Riga, Lt Döring claimed two Tu-4 Bat bombers downed while trying to attack Dünaburg rail junction and yards.

'Schwarze Vier' was a mélange of recovered 'Dora' components reassembled into a whole. OLt Döring would latter become Gruppenkommandeur of 2./JG 30.

_______________________________

[1] Rall had been recruited out of hospital to resume command of his old unit - JG 30 being a renumbered Jagdgeswader 301.

[2] Prior to the 'collapse', OFw Zander had trained on the Me 262. He served as a consultant pilot on turbojet-engined aircraft for Allied Intelligence prior to rejoining JG 30.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 06, 2022, 09:22:07 AM
That's pretty cool! :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 06, 2022, 01:02:23 PM
Love the Juli-Plot Focke Wulfs!
It just might be possible to blend that alt history with my funny Spitfires and Hestons, used by Finland, Baltic States and Scandinavian countries. http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg44727#msg44727 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2970.msg44727#msg44727)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 08, 2022, 05:51:12 AM
Cheers folks  :D

perttime: Those alt-Spitfires definitely fit! Dig your 'Finnic Federation' concept too  :smiley:

___________________________

Die Übergangsluftwaffe - The Transition Luftwaffe

It took some time (and negotiation with Die neuen Verbündeten) to determine the new marking scheme for Bundesluftwaffe aircraft. During the Bürgerkrieg im Dritten Reich - the civil war which erupted between supporters of the Juli-Plot and those loyal to the Nazis - die Plotters scrubbed the Hakenkreuze from their tailplanes. In the immediate aftermath, the Balkankreuze were also covered over (in a sop to Western Allied anti-aircraft gunner recognition).

New markings were agreed between the Interimsleitung (Interim Leadership) in Bonn and Western Powers. This was to consist of a white Balkankreuze superimposed over a black disc for non-combatant aircraft - trainers and other support types. [1] Combat aircraft would wear similar crosses over a blue disc banded with white. Obviously based upon USAAF roundels - to the point of including asymmetrical wing markings - this style was adopted primarily to further aid in recognition.

Since Bundesluftwaffe combat aircraft were intended to operate exclusively on the OstFront, yellow theatre markings were also applied. In many cases this meant the overpainting of previous Reichsverteidigung color bands. This may explain why many Bundesluftwaffe combat types lacked RLM 04 Gelb wingtip panels.

Schlacht - Messerschmitts for Ground-Attack

Ground-attack was the key role assigned to the Bundesluftwaffe in pushing back the advancing Red Army from Germany's eastern borders. Losses were high and the supply of refurbished Fw 190F and 'Gs could not keep pace with demand. As a result, many former Reichsverteidigung Bf 109s were allotted to make up numbers for the struggling Schlachtgeschwadern.

Top Messerschmitt Bf 109G-14 of IV./SG 77, lost to 'friendly fire' over Narva. This aircraft is shown ohne Markierungen - with national markings overpainted - as it appeared when shot down in error by an Estonian light flak battery.

Bottom Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/R6 of III./SG 3 while at Feldflugplatz Vinschai (Vincai) in southwestern Lithuania, February 1945.  'Weiße A' is in a typical late-war camouflage scheme with post Juli-Plot markings overpainted in the field. The 'erks' got the asymmetrical underwing markings right but missed the 'bars' on the fuselage roundels.

In the Schlachtgeschwadern, the underwing 'Gondel' cannons revealed a Flak-Strafer escort role. For such aircraft, the under-fuselage rack was strictly for fuel tanks - no bombs were ever carried by these Flak-Strafflugzeuge.

________________________________

[1] Black and white being the traditional colours of Prussia.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 08, 2022, 12:47:04 PM
... Dig your 'Finnic Federation' concept too  :smiley:
I recall needing the Federation so that I could put a Finnish Border Guard aircraft in an Asiatic group build ;)

Quote
Bottom Messerschmitt Bf 109G-2/R6 of III./SG 3 while at Feldflugplatz Vinschai (Vincai) in southwestern Lithuania, February 1945.  'Weiße A' is in a typical late-war camouflage scheme with post Juli-Plot markings overpainted in the field. The 'erks' got the asymmetrical underwing markings right but missed the 'bars' on the fuselage roundels.
It is a little surprising to see a G-2 with the bumps required by the bigger machineguns on the nose.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 08, 2022, 10:15:51 PM
I recall needing the Federation so that I could put a Finnish Border Guard aircraft in an Asiatic group build ;)

Suuri Suomi Uraaliin asta!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 09, 2022, 02:36:55 AM
I wonder...will we see any Allied types in Juli-Plot markings?  Some Typhoons or Tempests?  P-51s or P-47s?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 09, 2022, 11:21:43 AM
I wonder...will we see any Allied types in Juli-Plot markings?  Some Typhoons or Tempests?  P-51s or P-47s?

Greg: I wondered about Western Allied aircraft supplied to the Bundesluftwaffe but decided against. All was not forgiven in the aftermath of the Juli-Plot. After an Armistice was agreed with the pushed-back Soviets, German forces were to be disarmed and stood down.

perttime: I think you're right ... I've obviously misidentified that Bf 109G-2/R6  :-[
__________________________________________________

More Post Juli-Plot Messerschmitts

Top Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10 in the stripped finish typical of Bf 109Gs and 'Ks rebuilt or finished at the Wertheim facility. Although in full operational markings, this aircraft has been retained for armaments trials (performed by Wertheim test pilot, Flugkaptän Anton Riediger). As a result of these trials, paired mounts for 27 kg Raketengeschosse became an optional fit on Wertheim Bf 109 rebuilds (although supplies of the British 60lb SAP No2 Mk.I rockets to the Bundesluftwaffe remained spotty).

A feature of stripped Wertheim birds was the refinishing of tailplane wooden components and fabric surfaces in RLM 04 Gelb recognition colours. This aircraft's horizontal tails are also painted yellow. Rather unusual is the anti-glare panel. This may have been done in locally-mixed paints or even USAAF Olive Drab.

Bottom Another Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10, this time in an overall aluminum paint scheme. This Gustav has been supplied to the Latvijas gaisa aizsargi (Latvian Air Guard) which was now under US supervision. [1] 'Balts 4B' (White 4B) is a strafer armed with additional underwing MG 151/20 guns. (Other Latvian Messerschmitts were locally fitted with kanoe mounts for US 50-cal Brownings.)

The new Latvian national markings are based on the insignia of the prewar Aizsargu organizācija (AO or Guards Organization). [2] The Latvian flag stretches across both the tailfin and the rudder. 'Balts 4B' also carries Latvian National Guard emblem on its cowling (although it is not clear whether this was a unit or personal marking). Note that recognition markings are not in RLM 04 (perhaps this was USAAF-supplied yellow paint?).  This aircraft is shown in the markings it wore when crash-landed at Dno-Griwotschki, 94 km east of Pskov.

_______________________________________________________

[1] The new name literally meant 'Latvian Air Defenders'. Why it was felt necessary to change the post-collapse name from the established Latvijas Gaisa spēki remains unclear.

[2] This was in response to negative reactions to the traditional Latvian Ugunskrusts ('Firecross') symbol which the Western Allies (incorrectly) associated with the Nazi Hakenkreuze.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 09, 2022, 01:45:10 PM
...
perttime: I think you're right ... I've obviously misidentified that Bf 109G-2/R6  :-[
__________________________________________________

Top Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10 in the stripped finish typical of Bf 109Gs and 'Ks rebuilt or finished at the Wertheim facility. Although in full operational markings, this aircraft has been retained for armaments trials (performed by Wertheim test pilot, Flugkaptän Anton Riediger). As a result of these trials, paired mounts for 27 kg Raketengeschosse became an optional fit on Wertheim Bf 109 rebuilds (although supplies of the British 60lb SAP No2 Mk.I rockets to the Bundesluftwaffe remained spotty).
...
Bottom Another Messerschmitt Bf 109G-10, this time in an overall aluminum paint scheme. This Gustav has been supplied to the Latvijas gaisa aizsargi (Latvian Air Guard) which was now under US supervision. [1] 'Balts 4B' (White 4B) is a strafer armed with additional underwing MG 151/20 guns. (Other Latvian Messerschmitts were locally fitted with kanoe mounts for US 50-cal Brownings.)
...
But what do you get if you take a G-2 and mount the bigger machineguns on it, in addition to the wing guns?
---------
The very latest Bf 109 models are the best looking to me. The different cowling over the machineguns, etc. make them look sleek and muscular.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 09, 2022, 04:25:46 PM
[1] The new name literally meant 'Latvian Air Defenders'. Why it was felt necessary to change the post-collapse name from the established remains unclear.

I get Latvijas gaisa aizsargi = "Air Defences of Latvia", while Latvijas Gaisa spēki = "Latvian Air Force" (Google Translate); Therefore, if the Latvians saw the role of their air forces change from a force capable of/expected to engage in acts of aggression as much as acts of protection to one purely expected to protect the territory & air space of Latvia, & wished to telegraph this to others without actually coming straight out & saying it, then the change of name of the air forces is one means of doing that.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 10, 2022, 01:38:00 AM
All was not forgiven in the aftermath of the Juli-Plot. After an Armistice was agreed with the pushed-back Soviets, German forces were to be disarmed and stood down.


So the Western Allies give tentative, but not overt, support to the Germans while they continue to fight to stabilise the Eastern front and reach an armistice with the USSR?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 10, 2022, 07:33:31 AM
perttime: Bigger Beulen' are Better!  ;D

Old Wombat: Yep, that makes sense ... especially when being purely defensive is non-optional  ;)

So the Western Allies give tentative, but not overt, support to the Germans while they continue to fight to stabilise the Eastern front and reach an armistice with the USSR?

Pretty much. Western Allied support is overt but only intended to last until the end of active hostilities on the Eastern Front. The Wehrmacht is to help in pushing back the Soviets to the Pripet Marshes and out of the Balkan states.

In the original storyline - as a result of a revolt against the SS in Italy - Kesselring becomes Germany's Interimsleiter. But, as the name suggests, that position was a temporary place-holder. And Kesselring's high office didn't prevent 'der lächelnde Albert' from later being convicted on war crime charges. The new Ob.d.M, Großadmiral Rolf Carls, was also charged - although not convicted by the Western Allies Tribunal. [1]

The idea is that the Western Allies regarded cooperation with a 'reformed' German military as a necessary evil to curb Stalin's ambitions. Once achieved, the 'denazification' of occupied Germany would be somewhat harsher than in OTL. After the armistice, the Bundesluftwaffe (like the rest of the German armed forces) is disbanded.

By 1950, tensions with the Soviet Union had resumed in earnest. In May 1951, the unified Bunderwehr defence force is formed -  with its Gruppe Luftverteidigung (GLv) responsible for air defence. The GLv was divided into two - the Flugwaffe flying component and die Flugabwehr anti-aircraft defences.

__________________

[1] Of the three service chiefs, only Bundesluftwaffe head GenLt Hannes Trautloft escaped prosecution. So too did Wehrmacht C-in-C, Gfm Erwin von Witzleben. The SS had already been declared a criminal organization. Similar status followed for those holding NSDAP membership.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: jcf on July 11, 2022, 07:44:15 AM
The Wehrmacht's* hands were no cleaner than those of the Waffen-SS, there was no "good" German military in
WWII, they were all in willing, and for a long time eager, service to the Nazi State. This was especially true of
the war of expansion and extermination that was launched in the East, they knew what the war was about and
the goals of the Nazi State. In particular the commanders and officer ranks knew the nature of their mission.
Sorry, but all of the German military, industry, police and majority of the populace were complicit in the actions
of the Nazi State. The "Good Wehrmacht" is a post-war invention, a propaganda tool used to create acceptance
for "West" German re-armament as an ally against the "evil Commies". Grotesque Realpolitik cynicism.

*Which actually refers to all of the non-SS German military; Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine and Lutwaffe, not
just the Army. The Army's direct role in various genocides is documented and proven.

As to the concept of post-Juli markings, I think it's doubtful that they'd return to the Imperial cross pattée as, in
aerial combat, it would be easily confused with the former marking. Some sort of roundel seems more likely.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 12, 2022, 10:19:13 AM
All good points Jon. In this scenario, I certainly wasn't trying to whitewash Wehrmacht atrocities. More of a needs-must interim ally for the sake of the scenario (although admittedly half thought-through scenario since I don't even have a MacGuffin to explain the sudden split between Stalin and the Western Allied leaders).

Anyway, I was in no way suggesting that there were any 'good-guys' here. And I am more than aware that some of the most ardent Nazis served in the Wehrmacht. (As an aside, I note that US POW officials were most suspicious of DAK veterans as zealous Nazis and general troublemakers. The British seemed to have more trouble with captive Luftwaffe members.)

Agreed too on the complicity of most of the German population. Is there a German equivalent to "take the King's shilling"? 'Take the Führer's pfennig' perhaps?

... As to the concept of post-Juli markings, I think it's doubtful that they'd return to the Imperial cross pattée as, in aerial combat, it would be easily confused with the former marking. Some sort of roundel seems more likely.

True. This was why, as an initial scheme, I had just scrubbed out the existing markings. Probably some sort of quick-to-apply ID mark would have been better.

Actually, I had previously done black-red-gold roundels (this was a second go at the concept).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 12, 2022, 01:16:54 PM
...(although admittedly half thought-through scenario since I don't even have a MacGuffin to explain the sudden split between Stalin and the Western Allied leaders).
...
In the Real World, it didn't take all that long for the falling out to happen, after hostilities with Germany were over.
Perhaps the Western leaders were not happy about an expansion of the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 21, 2022, 05:35:38 AM
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10395.msg199647#msg199647

A Ki-100 with a DB 605A, you say? The marvelous Ronnie Olsthoorn comes to the rescue!

Here is Ronnie's Ki-61 (from Osprey's Ki-61 and Ki-100 Aces by Nicholas Millman) combined his bits of his Ki-100.

Backstory: By the start of 1944, the IJAAF had to concede that the new Ki-61-II Hein was a failure. Its higher-powered Kawasaki HA140 engine was judged the culprit. Chief designer Takeo Doi had already anticipated this outcome. Accordingly, he designed the Ki-61-IV Hein which mated the airframe of the Ki-61-III (with its cut-down rear fuselage) with the new Kawasaki Ha240 engine - a direct copy of the German DB 605AM. [1]

___________________________

[1] A prototype had been created by re-engining the one-off Ki-61 III with a DB 605A taken from the imported Me 210 V22 airframe. Under the unified Ministry of Munitions designation system, the Ha240 was listed as the Ha-160 - although this designation was rarely used in the field.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 21, 2022, 12:25:10 PM
The Kawasaki Ki-61-IV Hien canopy has some Heinkel He 112B in it, to my eyes. Or perhaps it is just the logical way to do it. I'm pretty sure that Heinkel's fighter designs inspired the Ki-61 anyway.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 22, 2022, 01:04:46 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 22, 2022, 12:18:58 PM
The Kawasaki Ki-61-IV Hien canopy has some Heinkel He 112B in it, to my eyes. Or perhaps it is just the logical way to do it. I'm pretty sure that Heinkel's fighter designs inspired the Ki-61 anyway.

Yes. The imported He 100s definitely influenced Kawasaki. Although that immediately reminds me of Logan's brilliant Nakajima Ki-63 Haitaka :)

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=144.msg77354#msg77354
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 22, 2022, 05:02:58 PM
Yep. Logan's He 100 derivatives are great. I've been thinking that a further development with bigger engine and possibly cut down rear fuselage would be cool.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 25, 2022, 08:53:01 AM
... I've been thinking that a further development with bigger engine and possibly cut down rear fuselage would be cool.

It would. I wonder if Logan will ever return to the developed He 100 theme?

I had intended to follow up on Greg's suggestion of a DB 603-powered Kawasaki fighter. My problem was with the Ki-64 'Rob' being such a gawky-looking bird. Then, I thought, what about a redesign of the planned Ki-64 successor - the Kawasaki Ki-88?

So, in this AltHist, the IJAAF immediately rejected Kawasaki's proposal of a Japanese Airacobra. Instead, the mid-engined layout was replaced by a more conventional arrangement with the larger, more powerful Kawasaki Ha340 (DB 603A) in the nose. The resulting Ki-88-II 'Ben' [1] went on to replace the smaller Ki-61 Hien in production.

Bottom Kawasaki Ki-88-IIa 'Ben', the first production variant. This fighter-interceptor was quite fast but somewhat lacking in manoeuvrability by Japanese standards. Note that the Ki-88-IIa retained the original, small tailplane design from the Ki-88 (I).

Top Kawasaki Ki-88-IIc-Kai 'Ben', the ultimate production type. The 'Kai' featured enlarged tail surfaces and a revised radiator bath based on data collected from test-flying a captured P-51B Mustang.

_______________________________

[1] The 'Ben' reporting name had originally been assigned to the fictitious Nagoya-Sento KI-001. Once it was realized that this was a non-existent type, the name 'Ben' was reassigned to the Ki-88-II.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Litvyak on July 25, 2022, 11:12:20 AM
Ki-88 strikes me as looking like the illegitimate offspring of a Bf. 109 and a P-51D.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 25, 2022, 10:11:06 PM
The Kawasaki Ki-61-IV Hien canopy has some Heinkel He 112B in it, to my eyes. Or perhaps it is just the logical way to do it. I'm pretty sure that Heinkel's fighter designs inspired the Ki-61 anyway.

Yes. The imported He 100s definitely influenced Kawasaki. Although that immediately reminds me of Logan's brilliant Nakajima Ki-63 Haitaka :)

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=144.msg77354#msg77354
Yep. Logan's He 100 derivatives are great. I've been thinking that a further development with bigger engine and possibly cut down rear fuselage would be cool.
Thanks for the kind words, guys! Those were definitely planned, but gradually stopped doing profiles a few years ago. These look great! Talos and I had planned the full Ki-61/100 treatment including cut down canopy and eventually radial with no belly scoop.

I love the Ki-88-II profiles, quite sharp.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 26, 2022, 02:47:58 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2022, 05:23:03 AM
Ki-88 strikes me as looking like the illegitimate offspring of a Bf. 109 and a P-51D.

Cheers! That was kind of the vibe I was going for.

I actually did an intentional Bf 109/P-51 mashup development (a startlingly long time ago!).
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg44510#msg44510

... Those were definitely planned, but gradually stopped doing profiles a few years ago...

Thanks Logan. Would you object to me bodging together 'low-back' Ki-63 variants based upon your profiles?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2022, 05:25:01 AM
... Those were definitely planned, but gradually stopped doing profiles a few years ago...

Thanks Logan. Would you object to me bodging together 'low-back' Ki-63 variants based upon your profiles?

Have at it and let me know if any of the profiles in a different form (on a white background, for instance) would make your job easier.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2022, 05:32:06 AM
Have at it and let me know if any of the profiles in a different form (on a white background, for instance) would make your job easier.

Many thanks Logan. On backgrounds ... I know it is kind of perverse but I rather enjoy removing backgrounds. No idea of why ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2022, 09:49:33 AM
No problem, makes things easier for me. Thanks for asking!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 27, 2022, 08:15:36 AM
Despite my comment above, I decided to stay truer to Logan's original Nakajima Ki-63-Ia Haitaka image, complete with its dramatic blue background.

Rather than put a Ki-100 rear glazing onto the He 100, I chose to stick with Heinkel shapes. So, I pinched the rear glazed section from Herbert Ringlstetter's profile of the He 112 v9 and adapted it to the Ki-63-Ia.

That new rear glazing may look disproportionately long. But, in reality, the He 112B was just a bigger airframe than the diminutive He 100D - 30.24 ft long versus 26.90 ft.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on July 28, 2022, 04:13:31 AM
I think that looks great, personally! And very much what Sean (Talos) and I had in mind.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 29, 2022, 04:57:08 AM
Thanks Logan. I did try the Ki-100 rear glazing of the Ki-63. It should work ... but just didn't look right  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 30, 2022, 08:44:27 AM
Robin mentioned a thread on SPF: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spey-hunter-trainer-with-a-hawk-style-forward-fuselage.39740/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spey-hunter-trainer-with-a-hawk-style-forward-fuselage.39740/)

I decided to have a go at a 'linear' 2-seat Hunter but substituted a tilting hood à la the Canadair CL-30 - that long sliding hood on the Grumman TF-9J/F9F-8T never made much sense to me ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 31, 2022, 01:47:42 AM
I like though I suspect that canopy might require some bracing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 31, 2022, 03:59:19 AM
I like though I suspect that canopy might require some bracing.

Interesting. I wondered if it might require a little more tail area but hadn't considered extra canopy bracing.

What is the concern which dictates the extra bracing, Greg? There is a speed difference - 623 mph for the Hunter F.Mk.6 versus 570-600 mph for the CL-30 and T-33. But, at 640 mph, the  F-94C Starfire was faster than the Hunter. And, AFAIK, the F-94C also used the T-33 canopy.

Of course, 'my' tandem Hunter might be slightly faster than the equivalent single-seater (assuming better aerodynamics for a longer canopy). Aerodynamics would also be improved by having removed the 'Sabrinas' (I was also trying to control weight gain by eliminating two of the ADENs).

After banging together the above, it occurred to me that there was a plausible development story other than the RAF or RNethAF abandoning their preference for side-by-side jet trainers. What if the Belgians opted for tandem 2-seaters - perhaps inspired by their Fouga Magisters - and SABCA or Avions Fairey produced the forward fuselages for their Hunter trainers?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kitnut617 on July 31, 2022, 05:16:40 AM
The canopy on a NAA TF-86 would be a good example
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 10, 2022, 03:58:56 AM
I've posted a query in the Centurion inspiration thread:
https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=178.msg200400#msg200400

Teledyne Vehicle Systems (now General Dynamics Land Systems) proposed a Centurion update which included Teledyne's Low-Profile Turret (LPT), a hull armour package, and the TCM (Teledyne Continental Motors) AVDS-1790-2A diesel (in place of the original gasoline RR Meteor). Some sources claim that this update package was pitched to Canada.

The problem is: By the time this proposal existed, Canada's Centurions had all been replaced in service by Leopard C1s. Fortunately, in whif-world, not making any sense ceases to a major limiting factor! By good fortune, the opening of a Low Profile Turret wormhole has allowed me to push the LPT proposal back by almost a decade  :smiley:

In this back-dated scenario, Canada accepts the LPT proposal but not the armour upgrade nor the US engine. (The up-armouring was thought unnecessary because Canadian Army Centurions LPTs were primarily intended for hull-down operation - following the British tactical concept for the Chieftain.) For a new powerplant, a West German diesel with some commonality with the new Leopard C1 was preferred. As such, the 660 hp MTU MB 837 Ba-500 was chosen to power the rebuilt Centurions. This was a 29.4 litre multi-fuel V-8 mated with a Renk HSWL 123 6-speed gearbox. [1]

Top Centurion LPT prototype - standard Canadian Centurion 10 hull powered by a 650 hp Rolls-Royce (Rover) Meteor 27 litre V-12 gasoline engine. A turret ring adaptor plate has been installed for the 'Low-Profile Turret'. The prototype was armed with a US M68A4 105 mm gun sporting a distinctive multi-baffle muzzle brake.

No markings were carried by the LPT prototype other than a Canadian flag on the aft side of the turret and a subtle Teledyne logo on the centre turret side (the actual LPT being on loan from Teledyne for the duration of Canadian Forces trials).

Bottom Centurion C.20 - the initial 'production' conversion Centurion fitted with the LPT and powered by a MTU MB 837 V-8 with a new Renk transmission. This tank has been newly delivered to CFB Lahr for Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) - which formed a part of 4 CMBG.

A number of detail difference can be seen when compared with the Centurion LPT prototype. Most importantly, the main gun has been changed to a Royal Ordnance L7 piece (out of stores, having been removed from Centurion C.10s). These guns have been fitted with a muzzle reference sensor system - as revealed by the collimator mounted near the end of the barrel.

For close-in self-defence, the Centurion C.20 was also armed with a 12.7 mm Browning heavy machine gun on a flexible mount. Early vehicles also features rectangular rubber side skirt extensions to help control dust while on the move. These 'straight' skirt extensions would later be replaced by a 'scalloped' design less prone to damage.

(To be continued ...)

______________________________

[1] This engine and transmission package was all but identical to that in Bundeswehr tank destroyers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 11, 2022, 12:53:56 AM
Looking good.  See my answer in the other thread too.  That said, I tend to suspect a updated Canadian Centurion might have been more along the lines of the Stridsvagn 104:

(https://military-wiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Stridsvagn-104.jpg)

Of course, another option might be for this to be done to the Australian Centurions... ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 11, 2022, 02:13:48 AM
... Of course, another option might be for this to be done to the Australian Centurions... ;)

Interesting that you should mention Australian Centurion ...  ;)
_______________________________________________

Top Centurion 'AS22' - An unofficial designation for a Centurion LPT demonstrator trialled in Australian by 1 Armoured Regiment in the early 1980s. This vehicle mounted a MAG58 GPMG for self-defence (rather than a 50-calibre Browning) and its experimental (and easily damaged) fabric side skirts were soon removed. Initial trials at Puckapunyal were basically successful but the lack of adequate air conditioning became very apparent once the test vehicle re-deployed with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment at the Mount Bundey Training Area in Northern Territory.

The Australian Defence Force was already preparing to receive Leopard AS1 tanks and had no real interest in the Centurion. Instead, the ADF was gauging the potential of the Low Profile Turret for the Leopard hull. The object was to determine whether such a hybrid had any potential as a recce or  surveillance vehicle to re-equip 2 Cav in Darwin. Lack of air conditioning in the 'sweatbox' might have been easily addressed. However, the key concern was over the severely limited number of ready rounds in the ammunition carousel.

Bottom Centurion C.26 - DFSV (Direct Fire Support Vehicle) variant mounting a Bofors 57 mm LPT gun. This automatic cannon was very similar to the Bofors 57 mm L/70 Mk 3 arming Canadian Navy Halifax class frigates. Outwardly, the Teledyne LPT looked very similar, inwardly it was specifically adapted for the 57 mm L/70 gun and its ammunition. [1]

The vehicle shown is one of the last serving Centurion variants in Canadian service. By the time of the CF deployment to Kandahar, all Centurion C.23 tanks had been replaced by Leopard 2A6Ms. But DND's Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) programme had fallen seriously behind schedule. As a result, the Centurion C.26 was the only DFSV type available for deployment. Lack of preparedness was partly revealed by the 'bum bustle' surrounding a tacked-on air conditioning unit. More anti-RPG 'fencing' shielded the base of the LPT itself.

Another 'Kandahar mod' was the fitting of a 'rooftop' Protected Weapon Station armed with a C6 GPMG. [2] Here that PWS is being used to 'check 6' - that weapon system's optics being superior to the C.26's rear vision cameras. This vehicle

As the Canadian Force prepared for their withdrawl from Afghanistan, vehicle training for Afghan National Army crews began on the DFSV Centurions at Camp Nathan Smith. Upon withdrawl, the ANA commenced operational use of the Centurion C.26s. Although left with considerable stocks of spares, C.26 servicability was poor in ANA service and the Afghan Centurions were idle by mid-2016.

With the end of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan, this last CF Centurion variant was finally retired. However, the 57 mm LPTs were refurbished and updated by BAE Systems to arm the LAV-MGS (Mobile Gun Systems) - part of DND's MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle) system. A heavier, anti-tank variant was also proposed within the MMEV scheme. This concept was not realized. Instead, the rebuilt 105 mm L7 LPTs were installed on the new CCV-MGS (Close Combat Vehicle) based on the Swedish CV90 hull.

______________________________

[1] The Bofors L/70 gun's smaller rounds - 57 × 438 mm R versus 105 × 617 R for the tank gun - allowed a larger ammunition carousel (carrying 15 ready rounds instead of only nine).

[2] C6 GPMG is the Canadian designation for the FN MAG 58. The PWS was a Canadian-built version of the Israeli Rafael Mini-Samson remote weapon system. Later the PWS would be classed under the US Joint Army-Navy Nomenclature System as the AN/MWG 505 RWS.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on August 13, 2022, 06:45:18 AM
Excellent Cent / Teledyne Low-Profile Turret (LPT) :smiley:

Rather like my Abrams LPT.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1398.msg25679#msg25679 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1398.msg25679#msg25679)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 13, 2022, 11:49:22 PM
Loving those LPT Centurions!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 14, 2022, 12:47:30 AM
These remind me a bit of the proposed conversion of the Comet A34 into the jointly developed Anglo/German Overhead Weapon System from the late 1960s - which you can get a conversion kit for:

(http://www.imaco.com.hk/kits/800/IMA03235/P1010156.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 14, 2022, 03:05:44 AM
Thanks folks. I've got another (non-LPT) Centurion coming ... maybe two   ;)

And then, I have to dive into that Overhead Weapon System! Thanks Greg  :smiley:

raafif Love your Abrams LPT  :-*

On the RW Teledyne proposal , the AGT-1500A was re-arranged as a Transverse Mounted Engine Propulsion System (TME-PS). That freed up space for a magazine to recharge the auto-loader. A cool detail, I thought (and an opportunity missed on the M1128 LAV MGS).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 14, 2022, 03:39:58 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 17, 2022, 04:07:23 AM
Hey apophenia, I just had an idea you might like to play with. I recently read that Brazil donated some of its retired M108APs to Uruguay.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/brazil-aims-to-donate-howitzers-urutu-apcs-to-cash-strapped-uruguay/ (https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/brazil-aims-to-donate-howitzers-urutu-apcs-to-cash-strapped-uruguay/)

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W9pWyW5FA80/X2X4O8wLV9I/AAAAAAAASCY/P88tWdOJnpcO84bMP0CJZnBs840WGEzzwCLcBGAsYHQ/s16000/M108%2BHowtizer%2B-%2BARMAS%2BNACIONAIS%2BII.png)

Confession, I've always hated the anemic look of the M108. The gun is just way too small for the turret and chassis. I think some users may have converted them into M109s, but other uses might be to remove the turret altogether and place a larger gun in the same position (like the Taiwanese XT-69 or Egyptian SP-122) or converting them into a driver training or C2 vehicle like the Belgians did with the M108 VBCL. All of these are practical, but kind of boring.

So, I started thinking, was there another weapon that doesn't have the recoil of a 155mm gun, but might be an attractive upgrade option for a user that comes into a large number of surplus M108s?

I think you could either replace the gun in the existing M108 turret or do a full turret upgrade with the T7 turret that they tried out on the LAV III.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqx3BD-WEAA5SrY?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://www.gdls.com/images/products/stryker/sph.jpg)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/south-african-artillery-cannon-guns-prototypes-projects-concepts-etc.22573/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/south-african-artillery-cannon-guns-prototypes-projects-concepts-etc.22573/)

Anyway, feel free to play with the idea or not, but I think you explored some Denel G7 105mm concepts on the old CASR site.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on August 17, 2022, 11:22:14 PM

Bottom Centurion C.26 - DFSV (Direct Fire Support Vehicle) variant mounting a Bofors 57 mm LPT gun. This automatic cannon was very similar to the Bofors 57 mm L/70 Mk 3 arming Canadian Navy Halifax class frigates. Outwardly, the Teledyne LPT looked very similar, inwardly it was specifically adapted for the 57 mm L/70 gun and its ammunition. [1]

The vehicle shown is one of the last serving Centurion variants in Canadian service. By the time of the CF deployment to Kandahar, all Centurion C.23 tanks had been replaced by Leopard 2A6Ms. But DND's Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) programme had fallen seriously behind schedule. As a result, the Centurion C.26 was the only DFSV type available for deployment. Lack of preparedness was partly revealed by the 'bum bustle' surrounding a tacked-on air conditioning unit. More anti-RPG 'fencing' shielded the base of the LPT itself.

Another 'Kandahar mod' was the fitting of a 'rooftop' Protected Weapon Station armed with a C6 GPMG. [2] Here that PWS is being used to 'check 6' - that weapon system's optics being superior to the C.26's rear vision cameras. This vehicle

As the Canadian Force prepared for their withdrawl from Afghanistan, vehicle training for Afghan National Army crews began on the DFSV Centurions at Camp Nathan Smith. Upon withdrawl, the ANA commenced operational use of the Centurion C.26s. Although left with considerable stocks of spares, C.26 servicability was poor in ANA service and the Afghan Centurions were idle by mid-2016.

With the end of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan, this last CF Centurion variant was finally retired. However, the 57 mm LPTs were refurbished and updated by BAE Systems to arm the LAV-MGS (Mobile Gun Systems) - part of DND's MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle) system. A heavier, anti-tank variant was also proposed within the MMEV scheme. This concept was not realized. Instead, the rebuilt 105 mm L7 LPTs were installed on the new CCV-MGS (Close Combat Vehicle) based on the Swedish CV90 hull.

______________________________

[1] The Bofors L/70 gun's smaller rounds - 57 × 438 mm R versus 105 × 617 R for the tank gun - allowed a larger ammunition carousel (carrying 15 ready rounds instead of only nine).

[2] C6 GPMG is the Canadian designation for the FN MAG 58. The PWS was a Canadian-built version of the Israeli Rafael Mini-Samson remote weapon system. Later the PWS would be classed under the US Joint Army-Navy Nomenclature System as the AN/MWG 505 RWS.


Can you share this & the other RCAC Cent LPT on the Canadian What If page? https://www.facebook.com/groups/228625345167056 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/228625345167056)

(I'm on my 6th 30-day FB ban this year, so no posting for me again)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 18, 2022, 05:59:58 AM
Hey apophenia, I just had an idea you might like to play with. I recently read that Brazil donated some of its retired M108APs to Uruguay.  ...

I think you could either replace the gun in the existing M108 turret or do a full turret upgrade with the T7 turret that they tried out on the LAV III...

Thanks for that Logan! A new turret might be a bit much for the Uruguayan budget. But I really like your idea of substituting a D-30 (kind of like the Egyptian SPH-122 mod. to their M-109).

Yeah, gotta do that   :smiley:

Can you share this & the other RCAC Cent LPT on the Canadian What If page? https://www.facebook.com/groups/228625345167056 (https://www.facebook.com/groups/228625345167056)

(I'm on my 6th 30-day FB ban this year, so no posting for me again)


Thanks Graeme. I'd love to but I'm not a member(?) of the Zuckerberg Imperium  :P

But congrats on your sixth 30-day ban! You must be doing something right ... and the year is only half over  :smiley:

Maybe I should join FB. I'm sure I could conjure up some sort of 'objectionable content'  ;D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 18, 2022, 02:35:49 PM
This is about the last Swedish armour updates of the 1980s. The Stridsvagn 1988 programme was intended to produce final upgrades for the strv 103 'S-Tank' and Sweden's multiple Centurion variants - the strv 101R, strv 102R, and strv 104. [1] The object was to provide the pansarbrigader with suitable mounts until the advanced Stridsvagn 2000 replacement programme matured.

As it happened, none of the Strv 1988 S-Tank upgrade proposals were acceptable to the Försvarets materielverk (FMV) - Sweden's defence procurement agency. But two Centurion submissions were considered. [2] These were from Hägglunds & Söner AB at Örnsköldsvik and AB Bofors of Karlskoga. [3]

'Gå stort eller gå hem!' - Hägglunds' Stridsvagn 1988 Proposal

Hägglunds & Söner submitted the most extensive modification proposal for Strv 2000. Under this proposal, Centurion hulls would receive an armour upgrade package while retaining Blazer-pansar ERA 'bricks'. 'Diesel-pansar' - in the form of fender-top built-in tanks as well as rows of strv 103-style jerry cans along either track-side - would be added to further increase protection. The drive wheels would be protected by gallerpansar (bar armour) with pansarkedjor (chain armour) suspended fore and aft.

Pansarkedjor would also protect the underside of the bustle of an entirely new turret. This turret would entirely clad in kompositparsar (composite armour) panels. Main armament would be the Bofors L74M L/62 gun - the former 10,5 cm kanon strv 103. The 'S-Tank' was also to be the source of the new tank's commander's cupola. A range of options for gun sights and other optics were offered to go with Hägglunds' submission to the Strv 2000 programme.

'A Modest Proposal' - the AB Bofors Strv 1988 Proposal

The Strv 2000 proposal from AB Bofors built on that firm's successful Strv 104 upgrade. Two major changes distinguished the Bofors concept from the recent Strv 104 conversions. First was an increase in engine power -  the existing 750 hp Teledyne Continental AVDS-1790-2AC diesels were to be upgraded to 908 hp AVDS-1790-5A standards. Second was cladding the forward arc of the original Centurion turret in kompositpansar panels. For initial conversions, the main armament would be the existing 10,5 cm kan strv 101 (or Royal Ordnance L7 L/54 gun).

The original Centurion's kjolpansar (skirt armour) was retained as was the strv 104's Blazer-pansar ERA. To add more protection to the forward hull, a gallerpansar 'fence' was placed in front of the glacis plate. Other up-armouring options included another 'fence' aft of the hull rear and chain armour closing the turret bustle gap -  this pansarkedjor being 'woven' rather than dangling (as per the Hägglunds Strv 1988 proposal). Bolt-on ceramic armour plates could also be added to the extended turret bustle.

An Interim Interim ... the Strv 108 Upgrade

The FMV concluded that the Bofors proposal best suited the needs of the Pansartrupper. Although a modest improvement over the strv 104, the newly-designated strv 108 [4] upgrade was judged adequate until the future Strv 2000 became available. The upgrades were to be applied in a series of REMO (Renovering och modifiering). Each completed REMO would result in a new sub-type letter. These were:

Strv 108A : Turret upgrades (including kompositpansar panels); forward gallerpansar 'fence'
- Strv 108A1 = upgraded strv 101R; Strv 108A2 = upgraded strv 102R; Strv 108A3 = upgraded strv 104

Strv 108B : Engine upgraded to AVDS-1790-5A (with IMI assistance); sub-type numbers as above

Strv 108C : Hull armour upgrade (lower glacis kompositpansar & rear gallerpansar 'fence'

Strv 108D : Main gun barrel change to Bofors L74M L/62 gun; strv 103C commander's cupola added.

_________________________________________

[1] Recent Centurion upgrade were judged obsolete before they could be launched. As a result, the Strv 105 remained a one-off prototype while the Strv 106 never left the drawing board.

[2] Two other submissions were rejected at an early stage - one from FFV Företagen AB of Eskilstuna (with foreign partner Teledyne), the other from Volvo (partnered with Oto Melara).

[3] By decree, Hägglunds and Bofors worked separately on Stridsvagn 1988 designs. Their joint firm, H-B Utveckling AB (for 'Hägglunds-Bofors Development') was banned from the contest to maintain its focus on completing the Stridsvagn 2000 concepts.

[4] The strv 107 designation had been reserved for a potential strv 103D follow-on.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 18, 2022, 06:20:51 PM
I like the H&S proposal! 8)

But, unless my  eyes deceive me, the turret ring seems to become rather narrow behind that chain skirt. :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 19, 2022, 03:37:56 AM
But, unless my  eyes deceive me, the turret ring seems to become rather narrow behind that chain skirt. :-\

Thanks Guy. And rest assured, your eyes are working just fine ... it was me that flamingo'd-up on that under-bustle cut  :-[

Properly rendered, that Hägglunds & Söner submission would show the standard Centurion turret ring diameter of 1880 mm - as compared with 1980 mm for the RW strv 121/122 (and even the Leopard 1).

I've got more Swedish stuff in the queue but, first, here's a quickie response to Logan's M108 suggestion ...
__________________________________

This is an Ejército Nacional del Uruguay AP-122 M108 (Autopropulsado de 122 mm - M108) at the Centro de Instrucción de Artillería de Campaña y Antiaérea (CIACA) in Montevideo. Former Brazilian vehicles, the AP-122 M108 have been refurbished and re-armed - their original M103 L/30 105 mm howitzers being replaced with 122 mm D-30 L/38 gun-howitzers.

Within the ENU, the AP-122 M108 act as back-ups to Uruguay's premier SPH - the AP-122 2S1 'Clavel' ('Carnation'). Note that the AP-122 M108 has been re-armed with a standard D-30 field piece (which lacks a bore evacuator but retains the multi-baffle muzzle brake).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 19, 2022, 09:57:56 AM
Love the upgraded Centurions!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 19, 2022, 11:10:59 AM
Just been thinking (Scary! :o), I have more than enough Centurions in the stash (How is that even possible? ???).

So, I've saved that image for possible conversion of the H&S proposal into styrene ..... One day! ..... Maybe! ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 20, 2022, 04:55:52 AM
Moritz: Thanks. Delving into RW Centurion upgrades takes you to Israeli and Swedish efforts. And, there, you get a reminder that both the strv 103 'S-Tank' and the Merkava each retain a bit of Centurion DNA. Not bad for a tank designed in the final days of WW2  :smiley:

Guy: Excellent ... I'd be thrilled to see any of these Centurions in polystyrene!

My starting point for the H&S proposal turret was, of course, the Leopard 2A6. Blending Leo and Cent turret pieces would probably be a plastic-bashing nightmare. But, if you've also got a spare Leo 2A5/2A6 in the stash, that would provide a good basis for comparison at least.

All of this has me wondering: Is there a more affordable 1/35 alternative to the AFV Club Stryker MGS kit? If not, that Comet conversion kit that Greg mentioned (Reply #3033 ) starts looking awfully appealing when compared to the pricey AFV Club offering.

-- Comress -75 Kit: http://www.imaco.com.hk/cgi-bin/prod.pl/id/IMA03235 (http://www.imaco.com.hk/cgi-bin/prod.pl/id/IMA03235)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 21, 2022, 02:16:28 AM
Another source of Centurion inspiration are the King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB) variants:

Falcon turret:

(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret_l3.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/falcon_turret_l4.jpg)

MAP:
(http://www.kaddb.jo/Library/634334483599368750.jpg)
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/middle_east/jordan/heavy_armoured/map_ii/pictures/MAP_II_heavy_tracked_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_KADDB_Jordan_Jordanian_002.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 21, 2022, 02:20:36 AM
Since we're on the theme, I thought it was worth reposting some of your older work:

(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=1456;image)
(http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=178.0;attach=1458;image)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 21, 2022, 05:57:14 AM
Thanks Greg. I do like that KADDB Falcon turret

Since we're on the theme, I thought it was worth reposting some of your older work:

On the topic of old stuff: A big advantage of the aging process is that one's past work is all but new again  :smiley:

The downside - reinforced by my old CBT3 rebuild - is the tendency to repeat oneself. Additionally, there is the tendency to repeat oneself  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 23, 2022, 07:48:30 AM
Not Centurions, but I've done a couple of other Swedish S-Tank/strv 103 spin-offs based on that Strv 108 backstory. The first is a one-off SP howitzer prototype ...
___________________________________

Sweden had a number of advanced armour projects but not all were tanks. One of the most futuristic concepts was the 15,5 cm bandkanon 1 (bkan 1) self-propelled gun with massive 15,5 cm kanon m/60 piece fed by an auto-loader. The bkan 1 was a joint project with AB Bofors responsible for the gun and its hull being one of the last projects realized by AB Landsverk. That hull was a straightforward lengthening of the strv 103 (by one extra roadwheel per side). However, such were the costs that only 26 of the planned 70 bkan 1s were completed.

In the aftermath, AB Bofors worked on a reduced-scale bandvagn based upon a lengthened pbv 302 APC hull. This proposed bandkanonpbv 3027 would mount a modified Bofors' 120mm L/46 anti-aircraft gun (in service as the 12 cm lvakan 4501). A field gun development - the 12 cm fältkanon 4504 - had been rejected as over-heavy for the calibre. So, Bofors turned to an SP gun variant firing the same 120 × 615 mm R round. As with the failed fältkanon 4504, automatic feed was retained but (due to a planned reduced rate-of-fire) liquid-cooling was dispensed with. However, this new bandkanon project stalled at the study phase.

Almost a decade later, FMV began weighing the option of introducing the Soviet 12,2 cm D-30 gun (with the object of both reducing costs and increasing commonality with Finland - the Finnish Army having fielded the D-30 as its 122 H 63 haupitsi). AB Bofors was then asked to restudy its bandkanonpbv 3027 concept using the Soviet piece - which had entered Swedish service as the 12,2 cm haub m/63 (to match the Finnish nomenclature). This study had hardly commenced when it was decided that the imported gun-howitzer should be mounted on a similar chassis to the in-service bandkanon 1C.

Anticipating budgetary problems, Bofors countered with an alternative proposal to place the scaled-down bandkanon mount on rebuilt strv 103C hulls instead. In effect, a minature bkan 1 turret/casement would be mounted on the aft-end of an strv 103C. This concept was accepted by the FMV and the rebuilt tanks would be designated bandvagn 2C. The bandvagn 2C concept was meant to take fuller advantage of haub m/63 features as a 'gun-howitzer'. The 12,2 cm bandvagn 2C conversion prototype was intended to demonstrate that such a vehicle could function as a lighter, more flexible SP howitzer while also being capable of acting as an emergency SP anti-tank gun. Or, at least, that was the theory.

The prototype 12,2 cm bkan 2C self-propelled gun looked very much like a short-wheelbase bkan 1. At that was the first indicator of problems. The bkan 2C inherited the poor cross-country performance of the equally short strv 103C. However, the rearward placement of its 12,2 cm gun and autoloader exascerbated the strv 103's tendency to 'bunny hop' over rough terrain. Worse, when the gun was fired, the bkan 2C reared back dramatically. The resulting need to relay the piece after each firing negated any advantage that the autoloader's potential high rate-of-fire might offer. Chefen (A 9) - the head of artillery testing - was not impressed.

Bofors' suggestion was the fitting of hydraulically-operated spades to prevent the bkan 2C from rocking back out of place when firing. This was nixed when trials officers for the Artilleriregemente pointed out that adding rear-mounted spades would make already poor cross-country characteristics even worse. Arguments and counter-arguments continued until 1990 when Sweden was able to take advantage of the re-unification of Germany. Amongst the vehicles being sold off by the BRD were ex-DDR 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers. These entered Swedish service in late 1991 as 12,2 cm bandkanon 3s. The Bofors bkan 2C conversion project was officially dead.


________________________________________

[1] Note the change in classification. FMV regarded the D-30 as a 'haubits-kanon' (gun-howitzer). But, while the m/63 was classed as a fälthaubits, the bandkanon piece remained a 'gun'. Odd as it seems, that distinction had also been made for Ikv types - where, despite the name, in-service Infanterikanonvagns (prior to the Ikv 90) all mounted howitzers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 23, 2022, 11:56:11 PM
I've got more Swedish stuff in the queue but, first, here's a quickie response to Logan's M108 suggestion ...
__________________________________

This is an Ejército Nacional del Uruguay AP-122 M108 (Autopropulsado de 122 mm - M108) at the Centro de Instrucción de Artillería de Campaña y Antiaérea (CIACA) in Montevideo. Former Brazilian vehicles, the AP-122 M108 have been refurbished and re-armed - their original M103 L/30 105 mm howitzers being replaced with 122 mm D-30 L/38 gun-howitzers.

Within the ENU, the AP-122 M108 act as back-ups to Uruguay's premier SPH - the AP-122 2S1 'Clavel' ('Carnation'). Note that the AP-122 M108 has been re-armed with a standard D-30 field piece (which lacks a bore evacuator but retains the multi-baffle muzzle brake).

Thanks! That looks good. Any chance of you doing an M108 with the Denel G7 105mm gun in the original turret? It would take up more room than the original 105mm howitzer, but it should be roomier than the M109's 155mm in the same space. It would also offer a lot more usable range for the M108.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on August 24, 2022, 01:43:20 AM
I always thought the S tank , once retired from actual tank duty, would have made a great ATGM carrier. A low profile TOW turret or similar and upgraded to Javelin or some such.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 24, 2022, 02:07:14 AM
I always thought the S tank , once retired from actual tank duty, would have made a great ATGM carrier. A low profile TOW turret or similar and upgraded to Javelin or some such.

I agree.  Replace the 105mm Bofors L74 with something like TOW (or Rbs 55 in Swedish parlance), possibly in raisable launcher and have under armour reloads inside.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 24, 2022, 07:43:37 AM
Agreed squared.

I always thought the S tank , once retired from actual tank duty, would have made a great ATGM carrier. A low profile TOW turret or similar and upgraded to Javelin or some such.

Ken: My first thought was some kind of urban warfare vehicle (since the strv 103 handled best on the hard). How to arm such a beast got me to my next post.

The idea is that Sweden's 'Home Guard' would receive armour for the first time. But, rather than trying to integrate them with Regular armour brigades, the Hv would specialize in urban warfare. If the Soviets get past the Regular mek and pansarbrigader out in open country, they'd then face Hv armour hunkered down in the towns and cities.

My 'Ikv 88' conversion was focused on IFV-killing - hence a turreted autocannon. The kanon would be supplemented by a cluster of short-range rockets (AT4s) circa 1989.

Were this real, I suspect that the strv 103s would've simply been uparmoured and retained their 105s. (But where's the fun in that?) Alternatively, if the S-Tanks stayed with the Regulars, I'd bet on AEV and ARV conversions instead. And I kinda like the idea of an 'Ingbv 103E' rebuild with a Pearson plough and rear excavator arm  :smiley:

... Any chance of you doing an M108 with the Denel G7 105mm gun in the original turret?...

Logan: On it ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 24, 2022, 07:45:45 AM
From S-Tank to ikv 88 Fire-Support Vehicle

Rather than simply retire the strv 103 fleet it was decided to turn these tanks into infanterikanonvagn or infantry gun carriers. In effect, these turreted ikv 88s would perform the fire-support role of an IFV (albeit, without the infantry dismounts). The 10,5 cm kan strv 103 was removed [1] and the rear compartment revised for the installation of a 2-man turret. Initially, that turret was to be an advanced version of the turret being designed for the future srtf 90 - a genuine Infantry Fighting Vehicle. However, plans shifted.

Considerable debate occurred over the main armament needed for this form of Ikv. The ideal piece was seen to be variant of Bofors' 5,7 cm anti-aircraft gun - however, that gun would require an entirely new turret design. One alternative considered was a 'ground' derivative of another AA gun - the Bofors 4 cm L/70. But that would mean no ammunition commonality with the pending strf 90 IFVs. [2] So, a compromise was arrived at. A hybrid variant would be developed by Bofors - essentially the strf 90's 4 cm akan m/70 breech and recoil mechanism mated to the longer L/70 barrel. The resulting autocannon was designated 4 cm akan m/87.

As built, the base turret was heavily clad in kompositpansar panels and the gun-mount strengthened for the new, long-barreled Bofors 4 cm akan m/85. The commander's cupola anticipated that of the strf 90 which its intermediate 'umbrella' positioning. Other than in changes to accommodate the new turret ring, the former strv 103 hull remained largely intact. However, like the new turret, the hull was also clad in kompositpansar panels for added protection. These panels were less thick than those of the one-off strv 103D but were uninterreupted on the long and now-gunless upper glacis plate. 'Diesel-pansar' jerry cans held over from the strv 103 helped protect the lower hull sides.

The ikv 88 was considered successful as a fire-support vehicle but had a comparatively short life-span within the mekaniserade brigader. Shortly after service introduction, the planned AT4 recoilless gun became available. Four were mounted on adjustable rear turret swivels. In 1997, less than a decade after service introduction, the Ikv 88s were stood down in Sweden's regular force  Thereafter, the infanteriregementen received fire-support from strf 90s. The Ikv 88s were then passed on to the Hemvärnet (Home Guard) - making up the Hv's first use of heavier armour. New Hv-MekB units were formed on a mix of pbv 301s and ikv 88s. The Hv infanterikanonvagnikv went through their own rebuild programme in early 2000. The planned ikv 88A engine updates were passed over to an ikv 88B programme where the Hv vehicles also received standard 'short-barreled' 4 cm akan m/70 guns from strf 90s. [3]

____________________________________________

[1] These Bofors L74M L/62 gun would be transferred to the Stridsvagn 1988 programme to create the strv 108D upgrade variant. The strv 108Ds would also receive strv 103C commander's cupola (now surplus to the Ikv 88 rebuilds).

[2] The 4 cm akan m/70 - a derivative of the Bofors 40mm L/60 - fires 40×311mmR rounds. The more powerful L/70 AA gun fires longer 40×365mmR cartridges.

[3] The long-barreled Bofors 4 cm akan m/85 guns were used to re-arm strf 9040Cs (which then became strf 9040Gs). The ikv 88 turrets - modified strf 9040A types - were showing the strain of their more powerful guns. It was felt that the base strf 9040C turrets of the strf 9040G could better-handle firing loads. It was also believed that regular armén strf 9040Gs would make better tactical use of the increased firepower.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 25, 2022, 01:35:51 AM
What about the Strv 103s again having their 105mm gun removed but then replaced by an articulated elevating missile launcher fitted with ATGMs or even SAMs as well - similar to below concepts:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/0wamk2g7eks51.jpg)(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/GER-_VTF_Giraffe_KMaK_TH_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 25, 2022, 07:29:13 AM
What about the Strv 103s again having their 105mm gun removed but then replaced by an articulated elevating missile launcher fitted with ATGMs ...

That would work!

So, here is an strv 103/56 rebuild - a de-gunned strv 103C fitted with an extensible Ericsson mast with sensors flanked by twin 'boxes' for Rb 56 BILL anti-tank missiles (the BILL system having top-attack warheads for hull-down targets)

BTW: The strv 103 here is based upon World of Tanks artwork. The 'inset' was playing with 'urban camouflage (which would be a lotta fun to fold up!).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 26, 2022, 02:14:30 AM
Outstanding!! :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 26, 2022, 02:16:23 AM
Now where can I find myself an articulated arm in 1/35 or other?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on August 26, 2022, 03:20:47 AM
Bandai construction equipment? Gundam?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on August 26, 2022, 04:08:39 AM
Now where can I find myself an articulated arm in 1/35 or other?
The solution might be found with the one Italeri 1/24th scale Commercial Truck Accessory Set that contains a HIAB type hydraulic crane which would be a good start towards your elevated device.  The other less desireable option would be to stock up on plastic from Evergreen or similar and build it from scratch.  I think the Italeri accessory might be the best option and it is "affordable" if you know where to look. 

Link: ScaleMates > Italeri (3854) - 1/24th scale - Truck Accessories II (https://www.scalemates.com/kits/italeri-3854-truck-accessories-ii--101778)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 26, 2022, 07:03:05 AM
Now where can I find myself an articulated arm in 1/35 or other?

Here might be a good place to start; https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html (https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html)

Example (1/32):
(https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/gallery/jlg/IMG_2297m.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 26, 2022, 07:33:31 AM
Here might be a good place to start; https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html (https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html)

Nice! I note that there are a bunch of 'zoom boom' telehandlers in 1/35 available ... but all seem to be diecast and quite pricey!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on August 26, 2022, 07:40:54 AM
Here might be a good place to start; https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html (https://www.miniature-construction-world.co.uk/jlg_models.html)

Nice! I note that there are a bunch of 'zoom boom' telehandlers in 1/35 available ... but all seem to be diecast and quite pricey!

Greg didn't mention price, so I didn't look, nor could I find plastic versions in the quick search I made but die-cast & styrene can be made to play together. ;)


PS: I did check the Hasegawa site & they don't make any .... yet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 28, 2022, 09:22:44 AM
... Any chance of you doing an M108 with the Denel G7 105mm gun in the original turret? ...

M108/G7 Light Experimental Ordnance - an American M108 SP gun with its piece replaced by a Denel G7 L/52 LEO howitzer.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Logan Hartke on August 31, 2022, 03:15:47 AM
Thanks! If it wasn't for the fact that they made so many M109s, something like that might've been a decent re-use of surplus M108s.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on August 31, 2022, 04:06:48 AM
Now where can I find myself an articulated arm in 1/35 or other?

Great suggestions for sourcing above. The imminent Leopard 2 ARV contains a single crane with a boom. Now, the Trumpeter LAV-R and Husky have articulated cranes, but the second section might have to be inverted to achieve that S-tank look.

The nice folks at Accurate Armour might sell you just the casting of the Warrior MRV crane.

Another option would be a segmented telescoping tube like the Danish ETS, and bonus, you can sculpt a textile boot around the sections! Easy-easy!

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on September 03, 2022, 08:14:04 AM
So much cool stuff lately.   8) The S-tank derivatives are pretty darn neat.

As for putting 122mm D-30s in M108, I recently had an idea for, well, the opposite: putting a 105mm howitzer into a 2S1 Gvozdika. A Ukrainian Abbott, so to speak. Ukraine seems quite happy with their L119s replacing/augmenting their D-30s, so switching the 2S1 to something NATO-compatible as well might make sense.
I guess the D-30/2S1 barrels are getting a good workout & will wear out sooner or later. Not sure who's producing barrels & willing to sell. 122mm ammo demand may also exceed production capabilities.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 10, 2022, 03:24:14 AM
Moritz ... apologies for the late response.

I would think that swapping out worn D-30s for smaller NATO 105s would be quite feasible. I suspect that Ukrainian gunners are happy with their M119/L119s mostly because - unlike their old Soviet-era stuff - these 205 pieces are not worn-out .

Looking further out, the UK's L118s are due to be replaced by 2030. It seems to me that this and the need to replace old Soviet 122s represents an opportunity for NATO. Some have suggested replacing 105 field guns with mortars. The problem is that, like the 105s,  120 mm mortars are easily out-performed by the old D-30s (especially on maximum range). So, planners keep sliding towards more unwieldy 155s as 105 replacements. Maybe there's a better way?

ThinkDefence.uk said that the UK looked at 127 mm naval pieces as potential L118 replacement. And that does sound like a good match for the D-30. But, AFAIK, there has been no progress on adapting Excalibur or the OTO-Melara Vulcano for 127 mm rounds. And, besides, those naval rounds are huge - 127 x 835mm R for the Mark 45 'lightweight gun'!

I wonder if a possible answer might lie in another naval piece - the BAE 114 mm/55 Mark 8 Mod 1. This is a proven design which entered RN service in 2001. Once again, an issue is the size of its shells - 114 x 700 mm R vs 105 x 326 mm R for the L118. But what if the 'brass' was scaled-down to something more D-30 size? Say a 114 x 450 mm R round for field artillery and SPs? You could keep the Mark 8's 'base bleed' HE-ER option but, I suspect that a 'land 114' would out-range the 122 simply by virtue of its smaller shell.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 22, 2023, 09:36:13 AM
I've started a Scenarios thread on more Challenger 2s for Ukraine:

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10638.msg204957#msg204957

The profile  (a retouch of Ryefield Model CR2 TES artwork) is attached below.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on January 22, 2023, 08:54:25 PM
Yeah, your back  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 17, 2023, 09:00:10 AM
More armour ... In the early 1990s, Ukrainian industry proposed a heavy BMP infantry support vehicle based on a surplus T-55 hulls now armed with BMP-2 turrets. This concept was not pursued - presumably due to lack of export market interest. But what if the ZSU itself had wanted such a vehicle?

A Ukrainian 'BMPT-55'?

After the demise of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited ~700 x T-54 and T-55 tanks in varying conditions. Many of these would be refurbished and sold to developing nations. There were no shortage of spares but nor was there any doubt that the T-55 (and especially its 100 mm D-10T gun) were now totally obsolete for any future European battlefield. Accordingly, select T-55 hulls were stripped of their heavy, cast turrets for conversion to heavy Infantry Support Vehicles (Mashyna Pidtrymky Pikhoty) or MPP-55s.

The MPP-55 concept had come from the Ukrainian State Enterprise 'Kharkiv Morozov Machinery Design Bureau' (KhMDB). To better match the project's budgetary restrictions, KhMDB replaced its originally-planned raised hull roof with a simple, truncated-cone turret riser. The bottom of this riser matched the original T-55 turret opening while the top incorporated the turret race from the BMP-2. As this effectively represented a bolt-on conversion to the T-55 hull, it was quickly approved for prototype development under Proekt Karaul'nyy (Project Guardsman).

Work proceeded to KhMDB's scheme at the Malyshev Factory (also in Kharkiv) with the first MPP-55s Karaul (Guard) [1] delivered to the ZSU in late 1998 - the conversions having been delayed by Pakistani orders for the production of 320 x T-80UD tanks. MPP-55 Karaul service introduction was relatively seemless. The now-lightened T-55 hulls could maintain a 'marching speed' of nearly 40 km/h. Off-road, the MPP-55 was a fast as a BMP (although still 10 km/h slower than the T-72).

Bottom KhMDB MPP-55 Karaul prototype with BMP-2 turret after being fitted with its Konkurs ATGM launcher. Gun armament is the ex-Soviet 2A42 30 mm autocannon.

[To Be Continued ...]

______________________________________________

[1] Karaul is also the name of a mountain in Crimea.

NB: Image is based on MiniArt Models' 370774 (T-55 Czechoslovak Production) box-art.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 18, 2023, 01:57:29 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 18, 2023, 04:35:00 AM
Improving the Karaul Breed - the  MPP-55M

After combat experience against 'separatists' in the Donbas, the doctrine behind the Infantry Support Vehicle came under criticism. It was soon realized that the MPP-55s were performing better in their ad hoc role of supporting tank advances against opposing infantry. Other than being fitted with Kontakt ERA 'bricks' for extra protection against RPGs, no changes were needed for the new role. However, a new designation was applied - that of MPT-55 for Mashyna Pidtrymky Tankiv or Tank Support Vehicle.

There is still some mystery behind the evolution of the MPT-55M upgrade. These vehicles feature turrets not unlike the Berezhok type fitted to upgraded Russian BMP-2Ms. It is rumored that Ukraine's KamPod (Kamianets-Podilskiy) facility was able to reverse-engineer the Berezhok turret based on samples provided by Algeria sometime in the early 2010s. Whatever the truth of it, examples of the MPT-55M upgrade complete with KamPod turrets began to appear in ZSU service before the end of 2016 (as did upgraded BMP-2UAM infantry fighting vehicles). These turrets are armed with 30 mm ZTM-2 autocannons - a Ukrainian variant of the 2A42 - a 30 mm AGS-17M Polum'ya automatic grenade-launcher, and twin Bar'yer S launchers for RK-2P or RK-2POF ATGMs.

Image A Karaul-M tank support vehicle in early March 2022. This vehicle is an MPT-55M1 upgrade fitted with KhMDB's improved Nizh ERA 'bricks' - but lacking the slat-armour 'fences' over its rear roadwheels and drive sprockets which would make it a full MPT-55M2 upgrade.

Unrealized MPT-55 Variants

Two potential MPT-55 improvement programmes completed for limited development funds in the lead-up to the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. One sprang from the stalled Strazh (Guard) project - which consisted of a converted T-64BV hull with a new BMPT-like turret. The latter was Zhytomyr Armored Plant's Duplet Combat Module with a gun armament of  2 x ZTM-2 autocannons. It was proposed that this twin-gunned Duplet  turret be fitted instead to unmodernized MPT-55 hulls. [1] Funding for this proposed MPT-55MD Vartivnyk (Watchman) programme had yet to be approved at the time of the 2022 Russian invasion.

A more general modernization proposal was the MPT-55MX upgrade. The most important (and expensive) aspect of the MPT-55MX would be its entirely new powerplant. The inefficient old Soviet V-55 diesel was to be replaced by a COTS, multi-fuel 24.2 litre Liebherr D9512M V12. This new engine would produce up to 1,000 hp through a new Renk gearbox. Prior to the Russian invasion, the MPT-55MX upgrade had been eclipsed by a proposed MPT-72 conversion programme.

______________________________________________

[1]  Duplet  means 'doublet' in the sense of something consisting of two identical parts - in this case, the twin 30 mm cannons.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 20, 2023, 06:04:28 AM
The Ukrainian MoD's Proekt Varyaz'kyy (Project Varangian) represented the Zbroini syly Ukrainy's (ZSU) desire to emulate Russia's new BMP-T 'Terminator' concept. Ukroboronprom’s Zhytomyr Armour Plant put forward two proposals to meet Proekt Varyaz'kyy. One was a close match for the BMP-T - the T-64BV-based Strazh (Guard) project. Like the BMP-T, Strazh was armed with twin 30 mm autocannons and ATGMs. The second was a 'medium calibre' concept mounting a single 57 mm Bofors gun. This was Zhytomyr's T-55-based Storozha (Sentry).

The Storozha's turret was part of the Kompleks 'Midna boroda' (System 'Copper Beard'). The 'medium calibre' turret was a licensed Slovakian Odin KM 570 type from Ljubljana-based Valhalla Turrets. The Ukrainian version of this turret would be dubbed Perun AH-57. [1] Armament was to a Bofors L/70 57mm autocannon with side-mounted launch boxes for rockets. The latter would be RK-3M Corsar-M or RK-6 Pirat ATGMs (using Izyum IR sights) or twin, 6-round boxes for Sarmat (Sarmatian) unguided rockets.

A prototype conversion was made of a T-55 hull mounting the Perun AH-57 turret which Zhytomyr revealed to MoD officials in November 2021. If accepted, the converted system was to enter ZSU service as the SMVP-55 Storozha (Sentry) - with SMVP standing for Serednya Mashyna Vohnevoyi Pidtrymky or medium fire-support vehicle. Firing trials showed the L/70 Bofors to be a powerful weapon firing up to 200 rounds per minute. However, there was some question as to whether Ukroboronprom's Precision Mechanics Plant could get a license from Bofors or, indeed, find floor space for the production of yet another cannon type.

As a backup plan, Zhytomyr proposed its Perun AH-57S turret variant substituting the surplus and readily available 57mm AZP S-60 cannon. Compared with the Bofors, that Soviet-era anti-aircraft gun had a longer (L/77) barrel but fired a less powerful round - 57x348SR versus the Bofors' 57x438R. The Slovakian remotely-control turret design could easily accommodate the old Soviet gun but ammunition stowage and feed systems would have to be completely redesigned. The ZSU's decision on a final armament type were still pending when Russian invaded Ukraine in late February 2022.

Image Zhytomyr SMVP-55 Storozha as rolled out in November 2021 (note Kaktus-style ERA). No turret-side missiles are mounted. Reportedly, the Storozha prototype was fitted with Sarmat rocket boxes prior to the Russian invasion. It is unknown whether those launch boxes were still mounted when the SMVP-55 was lost in combat, defending Ivankiv north of Kyiv.

_____________________________________________

[1] For Avtomatychna Harmata or automatic cannon, 57 mm. Perun was the pagan Slavic god of war and thunder, amongst other things.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on February 28, 2023, 10:35:43 AM
Loving the fire support T-55s!  :-*
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on March 02, 2023, 06:17:05 PM
De Havilland Comet Inflight Refuellers Down Under - Part Two

From Singapore-Changi, RAAF fighters could readily deploy to forward bases during the final years of the 'Malayan Emergency'. In the opening phases of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, RAAF Sabres re-deployed to the Royal Thai Air Force Base Ubon. By this stage in the early '60s, the aging Comets had lost their cachet as VIP transports. Well-used Comet A87-101 was retired and sold off. [1] But the remaining three No. 33 Squadron Comets could now be dedicated to IFR and trooping. But, to the surprise of all, inflight refuelling by Comets would play a critical role in RAAF operations in South Vietnam.

In December 1967, it was decided to forward-deploy Sabres at Vung Tau in the Republic of Vietnam to support the 1st Australian Task Force in Phuoc Tuy province. The Sabres were operating in high heat and humidity, while often carrying heavy ground-attack ordnance. Whenever possible, the RAAF fighter took off 'light' and refuelled enroute to targets. Two Comets would trade off doing circuits over SE Vietnam to top-up the Sabres. [2] The pace was relentless. By the beginning of 1970, both the Sabres and the Comets were withdrawn from Vietnam. Having played essential roles in supporting 1 ATF on the ground, both aircraft fleets were worn out. The last Sabre was retired in 1971. The Comets lingered on in storage at RAAF Base Woomera until August 1975 when the surviving trio were sold for scrap.

Image De Havilland DH.106 Comet Mk.4CR of No. 33 Squadron, RTAF Base Ubon, eastern Thailand, December 1967. Inset is a probed CA-27 Sabre Mk.33 fighter. Note the tropical fading of the Sabre's camouflage by comparison with Comet A87-102's newly applied paintwork.

In common with most other RAAF aircraft deployed to SE Asia, large black serials have been applied to the rear fuselage. [3] This dictated the unusual moving of the Australian roundel forward (almost to the nose). An Australian flag is displays above the fin flash but the camouflaged Comets carried few other markings.

______________________________________________

[1] This sale, in part helped provide funds for the purchase of an ex-Qantas Boeing 707-138B. The appropriately-named 'City of Canberra' (VH-EBC, c/n 17698) was returned to Boeing in October 1961. At Renton, she was refitted for the government VIP role and returned to Australia in February 1962.

[2] A third IFR Comet was always kept in reserve in Australia - while usually also undergoing maintenance and repair to keep the overworked RAAF Comet fleet airborne.

[3] The camouflaged Sabres were also exceptional in this. In contrast to the deployed Comets, Canberras, and Caribous, the Sabres worn their 'last three' numerals on their noses. Their roundels remained on the rear fuselage.

Oh wow, how did I miss this 😯😔

Love it apophenia!!
Any chance of a standalone profile of your probed CA-27 with with Aim-9B Sidewinder's??

MAD
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 07, 2023, 10:39:13 AM
Elsewhere, M.A.D requested operational Avro (Australia) Adelaides fitted with Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets on the outboard positions. And, here at Apophenia Industries, customer satisfaction is 'Job One'!

For others, here is the original Adelaide in context ...
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg195123#msg195123

The bottom version is basically just a jet-assisted Adelaide B.1(J) in post-1950 No. 10 Squadron markings.

The top version is a late-1950s Adelaide B.1A(J). This airframe has been fully modernized - with gun turrets deleted and Adelaide MR.2 glazings substituted. Heat-reducing 'titanium white' paint has been extended to some cockpit glazings.

Metal wingtips have replaced the wooden originals and incorporate tip tanks for kerosene. It was common to add the No. 10 Squadron slogan - "Strike First" - to these tanks. Hi-viz paint has been added to the tip tanks, fore-and-aft fuselage panels, as well as the upper tail fins.

Any chance of a standalone profile of your probed CA-27 with with Aim-9B Sidewinder's??

Sorry, M.A.D. I can't find any trace of psd files for that CA-27 Sabre ... I must have deleted them  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 08, 2023, 05:51:58 AM
Apparently, Japan wants to replace its recce choppers with UAVs. So, ...

Kawasaki Nindzya reconnaissance helicopter of Ukraine's 12-a okrema bryhada VPS (12th Separate Air Force Brigade). Other than Ukrainian markings, this aircraft's scheme remains unchanged from its time as a Japanese Self-Defence Force OH-1 Ninja.

Additional markings include the 12th's 'Drakon' motif on the tail badge and a toothy mouth. Below the cockpit is the silhouette of a Mil Mi-24, indicating a Stinger kill by this crew.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 09, 2023, 01:55:40 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on March 09, 2023, 10:50:48 AM
Nice!  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2023, 08:39:19 AM
https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7486.msg206749#msg206749

Evan suggested an upgraded IDF S.199 with its service life extended by replacing worn-out Jumo 211F engines with Merlins using the Hispano Aviación installation. This would certainly have simplified the Israeli's supply chain - since their Spitfire IXc fleet used similar engines.

So, I present an IDF Avia S-199M S'faradiy ('Spaniard') upgrade in 101 Squadron service.

This image is based on an S.199 profile by Helmut Schmidt. I've substituted a Czech sliding hood for the original Erla Haube. The nose is a standard HA-1112-M1L Buchón cowling and spinner.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on March 19, 2023, 03:57:21 PM
https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=7486.msg206749#msg206749

Evan suggested an upgraded IDF S.199 with its service life extended by replacing worn-out Jumo 211F engines with Merlins using the Hispano Aviación installation. This would certainly have simplified the Israeli's supply chain - since their Spitfire IXc fleet used similar engines.

So, I present an IDF Avia S-199M S'faradiy ('Spaniard') upgrade in 101 Squadron service.

This image is based on an S.199 profile by Helmut Schmidt. I've substituted a Czech sliding hood for the original Erla Haube. The nose is a standard HA-1112-M1L Buchón cowling and spinner.
Okay, now you are tempting me to acquire the necessary bits and pieces to model this one. it certainly looks "right".
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 20, 2023, 01:01:52 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 20, 2023, 09:29:59 AM
Sport25ing had suggested a WW2 version of the American-manned La Fayette Escadrille. The obvious mount would be the Curtiss H75 fighter, but then I remembered the one-off Pratt-powered Bloch MB 153 ...

L'Escadrille de La Fayette (Encore)

As a part of its belated programme de réarmement, the French Armée de l'Air decided to form Légions étrangères de l'air in April 1938. This was prompted by Hitler's 04 Februrary creation of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht and then was given political approval in the wake of the 12 March Anschluß. Within weeks, the AdA was receiving inquiries from potential volontaires américains which helped decide the nature of the first Escadrille de Chasse (Légion étrangère).

In mid-April, the Groupe de Chasse II underwent a re-organization. The fifth escadrille, GC II/5, was stood down just before Easter (being officially reformed as GC II/9 on Tuesday, 19 April 1938). Other than confusing paymasters, the purpose of standing down GC II/5 was to free-up its history-steeped squadron name - La Fayette - for use by the new, American-staffed volunteer squadron. The storied Escadrille de La Fayette of WW1 fame, it was thought, was sure to be a factor in recruiting US volunteers to the French cause.

On 01 June 1938, Escadrille de Chasse 1 (aka the 'Escadrille Américaine') was stood up - under commandant Marcel Hugues - as the premier unit of the new Groupe de Chasse IV/1 (Légion étrangère) or GC IV/1 (LÉ). Operating the gull-winged Loire 46 C1 fighter, EC 1 began operations as part of the reserve force of ZOAE ( Zone Aérienne Sud). However it was planned to re-equip the unit with Curtiss H75s when those American-made fighters began arriving in France in December 1938. But this never happened.

For unrecorded reasons, EC 1 'La Fayette' would be equipped with French-built Bloch MB 153 fighters instead of the Curtiss type. The MB 153 had begun as a straightforward re-engining of the Bloch MB 152 airframe. As such, the American Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp SC3G would meet the AdA policy of adapting suitable foreign substitute engine to French combat aircraft. However, the design office of the Société Anonyme des Avions Marcel Bloch (SAAMB) [1] saw advantages in a more thorough redesign of the existing fighter airframe.

The engine installation was penned at the SAAMB design office at Courbevoie. Simulataneously, conversion work (of MB 152 No. 449) was undertaken at Châteauroux-Déols. At the end of November 1938, the prototype Bloch MB 153-01 first flew from Châteauroux airfield. On 05 December, the MB 153-01 prototype was delivered to the Centre d'essais du matériel aérien at Villacoublay for testing. CEMA had several criticisms of the type, most of which had already been anticipated by Courbevoie.

Before the prototype Bloch MB 153-01 had even been rolled out, design work had begun at SAAMB of the production type MB 153 C1 fighter. The most dramatic change was the rearward placement of the cockpit. This anticipated the later Bloch MB 155 but, in the case of the MB 153, the move was dictated by space required for additional armament. SAAMB was well aware that no HS 404 cannons would be made available for the MB 153. Instead, the MB 153 fuselage was redesigned to accept cowl guns and their ammunition boxes.

Cowl guns were possible because the American engines had synchronizing gears fitted. The MB 153 C1's synchronized armament would be twin 7.5 mm Mle 38 machine guns (made by Fabrique Nationale in Belgium). Another four guns would be mounted in the wings outside of the propeller arc. These 7.5 mm wing guns could be FNs or French MAC 34 depending upon availability. As a result, the MB 153 C1's six-gun armament - two synchronized, four free-firing - was identical to that of the AdA's American-made Curtiss H75s.

As originally envisioned, the MB 153 was simply to be a Bloch MB 152 airframe fitted with an American Pratt & Whitney engine. However, this did not stop negative comparisons between the French and US fighters. The latter was lighter but had more wing area - which led to superior handling and manoeuvrability. That said, the MB 153 C1 was an improvement over the Gnome-Rhône-powered MB 151/152 (having shed over a hundred pounds in engine weight alone). The Bloch MB 153 C1 was never going to be a great fighter but it was available. The Bloch fighter was also more affordable than the US-made Curtiss. That should have meant more MB 153s in the fray but, alas, production at Châteauroux-Déols never caught up with demand.

Image A Bloch MB 153 C1 of GC IV/1 (LÉ) in May 1940. This aircraft is the mount of the commander of Escadrille de Chasse 3, [/i]capitaine[/i] Edwin Parsons, MM. [/i]Cap.[/i] Parsons - an ace from the WW1 La Fayette Escadrille - was on leave from the US Naval Reserve.

During the 1940 fighting, Parsons added only two confirmed kills to his WW1 score of eight. It was his aircraft's markings which caused a stir. [/i]Cap.[/i] Parsons had his fuselage roundels retouched with the central 'dot' resembling a US Navy 'star'. When these markings featured in an article about American volunteers in the International Herald Tribune, an immediate protest was registered by William Christian Bullitt Jr., the US Ambassador to Paris. The markings were then quickly returned to standard French form.

In a minor point on markings, note that the famous La Fayette emblem of Chief Sitting Bull has been altered. Although fairly true to the original, the head-dress substitutes US 'stars' for the now-besmirched swastikas used during WW1.

________________________________________

[1] The Société des Avions Marcel Bloch had been nationalized in 1937 to be subsumed into the  Société nationale de constructions aéronautiques du Sud-Ouest (SNCASO). The new Société Anonyme des Avions Marcel Bloch operated strictly as a design office, with all serial production being performed by the state-owned SNCASO.

Edit: Forgot to mention, this image started off as a perfectly innocent MB 152 profile by Thierry Dekker ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on March 20, 2023, 10:09:21 AM
Both the Israeli Buchon-ish S-199 and the Bloch MB 153 look great! Both are easily buildable from existing kits. The S-199 needs the canopy from an Eduard or  KP S-199.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on March 20, 2023, 05:32:01 PM
nice looking aircraft :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 20, 2023, 05:35:47 PM
The Bloch is good & would fit within the propaganda framework of "American pilots flying French planes as their fathers did in the Great War".
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 21, 2023, 01:55:06 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2023, 10:13:13 AM
Thanks folks!

Both the Israeli Buchon-ish S-199 and the Bloch MB 153 look great! Both are easily buildable from existing kits. The S-199 needs the canopy from an Eduard or  KP S-199.

Frank: I was surprised to see that Czech HR Models had a resin kit available of the one-off MB 153:
-- https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hr-model-7289-bloch-mb-153--945728 (https://www.scalemates.com/kits/hr-model-7289-bloch-mb-153--945728)

(Scalemates also lists a VAMI Models 'Bloch MB 153' but the box art shows a bog-standard MB 152.)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 21, 2023, 10:18:23 AM
Another Sport25ing suggestion was for the Southern Rhodesia Air Force during WW2. The RW No. 1 (SRAF) Squadron (later No.237 Sqn) left East Africa to go to Egypt, trading their Hawker Hardy army co-operation biplanes for Hurricanes. But, in my AltHis, I have No. 1 (SRAF) staying south until the conclusion of the East Africa campaign.

In Kenya, the worn-out Hardys were exchanged for Curtiss Tomahawks but the origin of those fighters is a bit of a mystery. [1] Apparently Tomahawk Mk.Is, these aircraft had equipment to USAAC standards but were delivered without armament. Once unloaded at Mombasa, the Tomahawks were assembled at RAF Port Reitz and fitted with a quartet of .303-inch Browning wing guns. Thence, they were dispatched to No.1 (SRAF) based at RAF Wajir in the Northern Frontier District of Kenya.

Top A SRAF Tomahawk with markings only partially applied. Tomahawk 'A' was the personal mount of No.1's commander, Sqn Ldr Lawrence E. Daly. On his first Tomahawk mission, 'A' was lost due to fuel contamination. The luckless Daly came down in the thorn scrub on the Italian side of the lines and was captured.

Daly's aircraft had a lion's face marked on its nose along with the name Shumba. Tomahawk 'A' was fitted with synchronized cowl guns - twin .303-inch Vickers Mk IIIs taken from retired Hardys. Note Daly's command pennant (inset) and that his aircraft's code letters have only recently been chaulked on.

Bottom SRAF Tomahawk 'F' was the mount of F/Sgt Peter Cline. Here, the individual aircraft letter has been obscured by a newly-applied fuselage band. Tomahawk 'F' had no personal markings other than the name 'Tanaka'. [2] In order to reduce wind-resistance, empty cowl gun blast tubes have been blocked-off with 'Broom Stick Mk.Is'.

In this aircraft, F/Sgt Cline shot down the Italian ace fighter pilot, maresciallo (W/O) Giuseppe Mottet on 22 November 1941. Mottet was caught while taking off from Azozo airfield south of Gondar. Attempting to regain his airfield, Mottet's stricken Fiat CR.42 came down beside the Metemma-Gondar road.

____________________________

[1] The likely explanation is that these were USAAC P-40Bs meant for the AVG. At some point on their journey to Rangoon, these fighters were diverted to Mombasa for Commonwealth use. That would explain what appears to be RAF Middle Stone applied over USAAC Oliver Drab. The undersides are RAF Azure Blue.

[2] A term of endearment, tanaka is a Shona name meaning something like "being in a state of beauty". The name Shumba applied to Sqn Ldr Daly's Tomahawk is another word from the Shona language of eastern Rhodesia - in this case, just meaning 'lion'.

These profiles began as a Pearl Harbor P-40 by 'Gaëtan Marie' (Bertrand Brown).
-- http://www.gaetanmarie.com/curtiss-p-40-warhawk/ (http://www.gaetanmarie.com/curtiss-p-40-warhawk/)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on March 21, 2023, 06:43:31 PM
Another excellent work  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on March 26, 2023, 06:05:41 AM
Elsewhere, M.A.D requested operational Avro (Australia) Adelaides fitted with Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets on the outboard positions. And, here at Apophenia Industries, customer satisfaction is 'Job One'!

For others, here is the original Adelaide in context ...
-- [url]https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg195123#msg195123[/url]

The bottom version is basically just a jet-assisted Adelaide B.1(J) in post-1950 No. 10 Squadron markings.

The top version is a late-1950s Adelaide B.1A(J). This airframe has been fully modernized - with gun turrets deleted and Adelaide MR.2 glazings substituted. Heat-reducing 'titanium white' paint has been extended to some cockpit glazings.

Metal wingtips have replaced the wooden originals and incorporate tip tanks for kerosene. It was common to add the No. 10 Squadron slogan - "Strike First" - to these tanks. Hi-viz paint has been added to the tip tanks, fore-and-aft fuselage panels, as well as the upper tail fins.

Any chance of a standalone profile of your probed CA-27 with with Aim-9B Sidewinder's??


Sorry, M.A.D. I can't find any trace of psd files for that CA-27 Sabre ... I must have deleted them  :(


Thanks apophenia and http://[i]Apophenia Industries[/i]
, your profiles look tip top 👍

I envisaged the RAAF squeezing that little bit more out of the Lancaster design, what with there being no peer adversary in the region at the end of WW2. The RAAF electing to utilise the new technology of the Nene jet engines for increased dash speed over the target......As such, the RAAF doesn't waste money on the mediocre Lincoln, instead it negotiates the leasing of Boeing B-29B Superfortresses from the USAAF/U.S. government.
But that still wasn't the end of the Adelaide B.1(J) in RAAF service, for they are further modified into the RAAF's first aerial flight refuelling tankers, to support the RAAF's new fast, but thirsty, jet fighters and interceptors......

Many thanks once again apophenia

MAD
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 26, 2023, 08:48:03 AM
Thanks M.A.D.

And now, yet another Sport25ing inspired notion ... The original idea was for a deployed RAF contingent in Poland forced to adopt local PZL P.11s. I've tweaked this concept so that the British personnel are in Poland to begin crew training on imported Hurricanes. [1]

Huragany - RAF Hurricanes in Poland

Caught in Poland after the blitzkrieg begins, the 'British Demonstration Flight' is ordered into action after Britain declares war on Germany on 03 September. Two Hurricanes fought in Poland. One was a standard single-seat fighter (ex-L1551 of No.111 Squadron). The other was a 2-seat trainer conversion (rebuilt from L1651 of 85 Sqn). [2]

Top  Hurricane 'White 1' of the 'British Demonstration Flight in Poland'. This eight-gunned fighter was lost on the afternoon of 14 September in the defence of Lublin. [3] Note that 'Flight' aircraft had their civilian markings [4] overpainted with British roundels. Polish national markings were also applied in an attempt to calm 'friendly' anti-aircraft units.

Bottom Hurricane 'White 2' after re-conversion to single-seat configuration. The rear cockpit has been covered with a wood veneer fairing to reduce aerodynamic drag. [5] Markings are the same as for 'White 1' (although the fuselage roundel has yet to be applied).

Originally wing guns were reduced to only two .303-inch Brownings - thought adequate for armaments training. In the second week of September 1939, 'White 2' was fitted with an additional pair of Polish 7.9 mm PWU wz.33 machine guns taken from the wings of a damaged PZL P.11c. On 20 September, 'White 2' was flown out of Poland - via Litiatyn (near Tarnopol) - to Romania where the aircraft was interned.

BTW: The sideviews are based on a SAAF Mk.I profile done by Brent Best.
____________________________________

[1] Poland actually did order Hurricanes. The SS Lassel which was transporting these fighters to Constanța (in Romania) was ordered diverted to Turkey after the Soviet attack on Poland began.

[2] On 27 October 1938, L1651 had 'turned turtle' while attempting a dead-stick landing at Aldergrove. Returned to Hawkers, this airframe was rebuilt with open cockpits to accommodate a second, instructor's seat.

[3] P/O Leslie Jenkins flying 'White 1' misjudged his approach and slammed head-on into a KG 4 bomber. Both aircraft plunged to their destruction - P/O Jenkins' aircraft coming down just outside Puławy while the Heinkel crashed into the Vistula River.

[4] The Polish civilian codes were chosen for their inclusion of 'WB' - as in Wielka Brytania (Great Britain).

[5] This rear cockpit fairing was created by Fabryka Mebli Stryjeńska - a Lublin furniture-maker specializing in steam-bending.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on March 26, 2023, 05:32:04 PM
Another excellent work  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 26, 2023, 06:16:35 PM
I like the story. :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 28, 2023, 08:40:31 AM
When the SS Poznań limped into port at Gibraltar on 20 January 1939, suspicions were immediately raised. Onboard were 16 PZL P.11c fighters enroute for Liberia. [1] So why was the routing Gdynia-Barcelona-Monrovia? Using their legal powers, HM Customs Gibraltar seized the ship's aircraft cargo. With her steering gear repaired, the SS Poznań was freed to leave on 26 January. But, by then, Barcelone had fallen to Franco. On exiting Gibraltar harbour, the Polish ship turned west out of the Pillars of Hercules headed directly to Monrovia.

The crated aircraft could not be left at dockside at busy Gibraltar and were shipped on to RAF Station Abu Sueir in Egypt. Meant for the recently-formed Royal Egyptian Air Force, the locals showed no interest (having just received new Gloster Gladiator fighters). The crated Polish airframes were then moved on to RAF Port Reitz near Mombasa in Kenya. There, the PZLs were to be assigned to the RAF's Air Headquarters East Africa. The 'alien' aircraft were not particularly welcome in East Africa either but Port Reitz was told to make the most of them.

Once in RAF service, problems appeared at once. The PZLs' Škoda Mercury VI. S2 engines were nearing the end of their lifespans. There were also issues with Polish IKAR (Szomański) two-bladed wooden propellers. The fixed-pitch prop themselves were in reasonable shape but their Tonkilaque coating of black lacquer reacted badly to constant exposure to the punishing African sun. Expansion cracks caused by overheating worsened the natural age-effects of the ash wood's open grain. Fortunately, RAF Port Reitz had stocks of spare engines for Gladiators.

All RAF P.11c fighters received English-language cockpit placards, desert survival kits, and other British equipment. Lacking armament, they were fitted with .303 inch Browning fuselage guns (again, from Gladiator spares). The aged Škoda engines did not last long in the dusty Kenyan environment. As they required replacement, the Gladiators' higher-powered 830 hp Bristol Mercury IX radials were substituted (along with wooden Watts or metal Fairey-Reed props).

Bottom RAF PZL P.11c Plover [2] of the AHQ RAF Nairobi aircraft pool stationed at RAF Eastleigh (just east of Nairobi). A round propeller hub reveals that this aircraft has had its original Polish engine replaced by a British-made Mercury IX. [3]

After Italy declared war on England in June 1940, the Foreign Office arranged for Haile Selassie's travel to Sudan. As part of the plan to raise an Ethiopian army of liberation, a modest air arm was to be created. Quick to rid itself of the P.11c, Air HQ East Africa recommend the "simple and durable" PZLs to equip any new Ethiopian fighter fleet. In fact, this new air arm would employ the PZLs - sometimes called Kuras (Crows) in Ethiopian service - primarily in the ground-attack role.

Operating from northwestern Kenya, the Ethiopian PZLs routinely bombed and strafed Italian position in occupied Ethiopia. When opposition was encountered, the Polish fighters proved more than capable of dealing with Regia Aeronautica Fiat C.R.32 biplane fighters (the more powerful C.R.42s providing Ethiopian pilots with a greater challenge). Several loses in combat due to Italian ground fire occurred during the Battle of Gondar. After the Italian surrender in East Africa in November 1941, the last of the worn-out Ethiopian PZL Kuras was withdrawn.

Top PZL Kura of 1 Yeberera (No.1 Flight), Ye'ayeri Kifili-ye'Itiyop'iya Imipayeri Serawiti (Air Arm, Army of the Ethiopian Empire). This aircraft was the mount of YF-IIS commander, Colonel John C. Robinson.

Kuras retained RAF markings other than Ethiopian roundels applied to their fuselages. However, Col. Robinson's aircraft also had its British fin flash covered by a large Ethiopian flag. Note too that this PZL has been fitted with an engine and cowling from a Bristol Blenheim.

_________________________________________________________

[1] The P.11c fighters had become surplus once the Lotnictwo Wojskowe started receiving new PZL.51a interceptors in the Autumn of 1938. An offer came from representatives of the Republic of Liberia. Arranged through the Polish Mission to Liberia, [1] the order still came as a surprise since that country had no air force. Nonetheless, the 16 retired P.11c fighters had been disassembled and crated for shipment to Monrovia.

[2] After the range of plover species which over-winter in East Africa

[3] This aircraft retains its Polish cowling. Other re-engined PZLs adopted spare Gladiator cowls - usually after their original cowlings had been damaged,
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on March 29, 2023, 01:36:53 AM
I do like the Ethiopian one
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 29, 2023, 09:22:14 AM
Thanks Greg. I'd forgotten that I was going to replace the RAF PZL's IKAR propeller with a Fairey-Reed. So, ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 02, 2023, 10:34:24 AM
Dmitry Peskov: "These tanks burn like all the rest. They are just very expensive." ... unless, of course, that's not really a Leopard  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 03, 2023, 01:29:46 AM
Errr...would that work?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 03, 2023, 02:12:03 AM
Errr...would that work?

Dunno. My inspiration came from the ZSU plonking all sorts of old armour (and even a replica Panther!) at crossroads, etc., to make these locations look better-defended than they really are. (I believe the notion is that 'real' armour will take a few hits before exposing itself as a hulk. Thus, RU firing positions are revealed, munitions expended, etc.)

My reasoning for the above was that UA had a bunch of dead/moribund T-55s they'd been trying to offload. So, how about a few T-55s got quick 'make-overs' as fake Leopard 2A4s?

Would such a decoy concept work? Depends upon RU sensing. With painted cladding (plywood?), the shape should be fairly convincing from above. (HE would blow off such cladding but APDS or APFSDS would not.) That these Леопард decoys are sub-scale would only be immediately apparent if positioned close to other man-made objects.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 03, 2023, 03:03:51 AM
Hmmm...I wonder about doing some remote controlled T-55s
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 03, 2023, 03:12:47 AM
Hmmm...I wonder about doing some remote controlled T-55s

Maybe even a modernised equivalent to the SU-122-54 but with 125mm 2A46 gun and autoloader from T-72 put in low profile fixed mount thus removing need to control turret and also make easier to utilise gun.  Cameras allow for vehicle aiming...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 03, 2023, 08:03:34 AM
Hmmm...I wonder about doing some remote controlled T-55s

I had considered UGV mods to UA T-55s for the Automatons on Parade GB but ended up going with Leopard 1 mods instead - what with all those turretless Leo 1s laying around in Belgian storage sheds  ;)

Here, I've veered off on to an entirely different angle. To wit: After the ultimate defeat of 'Z Force', UA begins preparing for any potential 'Round 3' with RU.

To make up for wartime attrition and to expand the ZSU's war-proven SPAAG fleet, Kyiv buys up as many stored Gepard turrets as are available. As German stocks thin, [1] Kyiv turns to stored Dutch and Belgian Gepard turrets. While German turrets go onto available Leopard 1 hulls, the Dutch and Belgian turrets are mounted on adapted T-72 hulls. [2]

Гепард 72 - An Eastern 'Cheetah'

When not positioned to defend Ukraine's cities and infrastructure, Hepard 72s are deployed with non-Leopard-based armoured formations. The Hepard 72s' Dutch and Belgian turrets are identical to the German type but differ in radar types. This is deemed acceptable until Kyiv's budget permits a fleet-wide modernization of radar - both search and tracking types. Until then, the T-72-based hollands'ki harmaty will continue to use their obsolescing Signaal sensors.

____________________________________

[1] Rather belatedly, BAAINBw Koblenz realized that stored Gepard turrets could be easily mounted on the Bundeswehr's older and un-updated Leopard 2 hulls - the Gepard/Leo 1 and Leo 2 having exactly the same turret ring diameters.

[2] The T-72 has a somewhat larger turret ring than the Gepard/Leopard, which necessitated the fitted of adapter discs sized for the Leopard turret race.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 04, 2023, 01:45:15 AM
Hmmm...would a Gepard turret fit on a BTR-4 (see below).  I suspect not but still...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/171201-Z-EL858-193.jpg/2880px-171201-Z-EL858-193.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 04, 2023, 02:50:24 AM
Another idea (and dare I say hope) would be for some Achzarits to be supplied to Ukraine.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 05, 2023, 07:17:41 AM
Another idea (and dare I say hope) would be for some Achzarits to be supplied to Ukraine.

I assume there is some weird, local political reasons as to why Israel didn't start actively supporting Ukraine the moment RU revealed its new 'bestie' relationship with Iran  :P

I note that Nimba's Achzarit upgrade includes a 1,000 hp Perkins CV-12 Condor diesel. So, plenty of commonality there with UA's 'new' Challenger 2 MBTs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 05, 2023, 07:19:14 AM
Hmmm...would a Gepard turret fit on a BTR-4 (see below).  I suspect not but still...

Hard to say. I'd guess that, like most wheeled IFVs, the BTR-4 might be a smidge too narrow. The limitations would not just be on physically fitting the turret but also the effects on the suspension when firing.

I'm thinking that the future of SPAAG - in light of recent experience in Ukraine - is worth a fuller discussion. Maybe in the Engineering section?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on April 05, 2023, 07:36:48 AM
Israel is upgrading the BTR-60 for foreign sales (higher roof & new engine).  Maybe an upgrade for the BTR-80/90 series ?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 05, 2023, 09:39:05 AM
Israel is upgrading the BTR-60 for foreign sales (higher roof & new engine).  Maybe an upgrade for the BTR-80/90 series ?

That would depend on how many of what they've captured over the years. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on April 05, 2023, 04:43:57 PM
Could the British form a Ethiopian squadron for use in North Africa after the East African Campaign?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 06, 2023, 09:58:47 AM
Could the British form a Ethiopian squadron for use in North Africa after the East African Campaign?

I doubt it, based on limited skilled manpower. It took a fair bit of foreign involvement to get the RW Imperial Ethiopian Aviation established - Hubert Julian and John Robinson come to mind. Much of that support sprang from Pan-African nationalism and was openly hostile to European colonialists - the British included.

Israel is upgrading the BTR-60 for foreign sales (higher roof & new engine).  Maybe an upgrade for the BTR-80/90 series ?

Yup, Nimda seems to specialize in upgrade packages which involve re-engining.

Another idea (and dare I say hope) would be for some Achzarits to be supplied to Ukraine.

Zhorstokyy - The Israeli Achzarit in Ukraine

After the collapse of the sixth Netanyahu cabinet, the newly-elected Israeli government belatedly agreed to provided some of the Achzarit heavy APCs which Kyiv had been requesting. In ZSU service, the vehicles were dubbed Zhorstokyy - meaning cruel, brutal, ruthless, or ferocious. (The Hebrew name Achzarit had also meant 'cruel'.)

Most of the transferred Achzarit were early-model conversions. But a handful retained their IDF 'LIC' (Low Intensity Conflict) commander's cupolas intended for urban conflict. Those with these octagonal 'doghouse' cupolas also retained their original Rafael OWS fitted with 7.62 NATO FN MAGs. The rest of the ex-IDF Achzarit were re-armed with a range of Ukrainian-designed weapon stations.

Top: A newly delivered Zhorstokyy assigned to the 21st Mechanized Battalion. This 'doghouse' Zhorstokyy has been extensively covered with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour 'bricks' (presumably because the rarer Nozh ERA was being reserved for fitment to ZSU Leopard 2 MBTs). No unit or recognition markings have yet been applied to this vehicle.

Bottom: A Zhorstokyy AH-30 (for 30 mm avtoharmata or autocannon) in full ZSU camouflage. Assigned to the 36th Mechanized Bn, the cannon-armed Zhorstokyy provided support for infantry from 58 (Hetman Ivan Vyhovskyi) OMPBr and the T-72M1R tanks of 16 OMpB.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on April 06, 2023, 10:37:36 AM
The Ukrainians had the BMP-55 a T-55 based APC, so not far off...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 07, 2023, 01:50:21 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 07, 2023, 03:39:10 AM
The Ukrainians had the BMP-55 a T-55 based APC, so not far off...

Yes. I liked Morozov's approach to the BMP-55 ... something akin to: "Hey, if we're putting a new transmission in this puppy anyway, why not just drive the hull backwards?" Good thinking Ihor!

Not sure that the Malyshev 5TDF was a good choice of engines but, I guess, Morozov wanted to keep everything local. By all accounts, the opposed-piston, 'suitcase' 5TDF was a really complex, parts-intensive bit of machinery and unreliable to boot.

Still, maybe Nimda should pinch Morozov's drive-backwards idea and offer a Perkins-engined 'HIFV-55"? There's no shortage of potential donor hulls  ;D

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 08, 2023, 06:40:09 AM
Border Model's Apocalypse Tank as Single-Gunned

I'm mounting this here because I didn't want to barge in on Frank3k's build.
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10709.0

This is a rough and dirty retouch of one of Frank's build photos. The Apocalypse turret has been sectioned between the edges of the mantlet to eliminate one gun barrel. Aft of the commander's hatch, the original turret width is maintained.

Top: The original rotating missile tubes are kept (but now reduced from 6 per side down to two - mainly so that those launchers still tuck in behind the front turret armour. This version also retains the original loader's (?) hatch ... although, personally, I find this a very odd hatch for a 'modern' tank. Border's RWS has been eliminated.

Bottom: A slightly more extensive turret rebuild. Proportions are as above but the swiveling missile tubes are replaced by elevating launcher boxes. The unconvincing loader's hatch has been replaced with a slightly larger, flush-mounted hatch (still not all that convincing but, to me, better than the original). Part of the point of this is giving the loader access to the RWS - now repositioned forward of the hatches.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on April 08, 2023, 07:03:04 AM
Your Model-Fu skillz will certainly find this conversion easy to deal with.  I definitely like the reduction in main guns even if an automatic loading system was incorporated for the twin gun arrangement it still takes up internal space so dropping down to one main gun seems to be the best choice. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 08, 2023, 10:07:23 AM
Ask any tanker what they need most in a tank & the vastly most common answer is "Ammo! Ammo! And more ammo!", it's definitely not "More guns"*. 8)




[*: Sometimes it's "Bigger guns" but never more. ;) ]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on April 09, 2023, 12:42:26 AM
That's pretty close to what I was envisioning! The basket at the rear may change as well.

I'd like to do more extensive mods, but the plastic is pretty thick everywhere on this tank (it needs it, since it's all press fit)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 09, 2023, 08:33:44 AM
Thanks folks.

Frank: I hadn't thought about the thicker plastic of a SnapTite-style model ...

Attached is a HAWK-totting Centurion (as per Gingie's request ...
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2618.msg207384#msg207384

I've done this without any sort of onboard targeting radar (assuming that missile-carriers would be slaved to a single radar system and launch control).

NB: The Centurion hull is based on an image of an ATV Club AVRE build.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on April 09, 2023, 07:00:12 PM
"After the collapse of the sixth Netanyahu cabinet, the newly-elected Israeli government belatedly agreed to provided some of the Achzarit heavy APCs which Kyiv had been requesting. In ZSU service, the vehicles were dubbed Zhorstokyy - meaning cruel, brutal, ruthless, or ferocious. (The Hebrew name Achzarit had also meant 'cruel'.)"

A "idea" that up - the new pro-Ukrainian Israeli government, besides the heavy APC's (and other equipment), send two companies worth of the newest Merkava III's or oldest IV's, plus another company as spares - the meaning of sending the tanks: to see how they perform against a more modernized army, since most of their fighting involved guerrila forces; and since they are the best tanks for city fighting, compared to the Soviet-built/based and the rest of the Western-made vehicles, they are the main tank force for pushing into Donbass cities and other large urban areas.  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on April 09, 2023, 10:30:05 PM
Two new ideas for Ukraine: Since the US is giving both the Stryker and Bradley to Ukraine, image giving to them as well both the M1128 MGS Strykers and M6 Lineback ADVs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 10, 2023, 05:30:38 AM
Thanks folks.

Frank: I hadn't thought about the thicker plastic of a SnapTite-style model ...

Attached is a HAWK-totting Centurion (as per Gingie's request ...
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=2618.msg207384#msg207384

I've done this without any sort of onboard targeting radar (assuming that missile-carriers would be slaved to a single radar system and launch control).

NB: The Centurion hull is based on an image of an ATV Club AVRE build.

WONDERFUL!!! I had a hunch the missile would be a big one after seeing a M727 triple launcher. Yes, the Radars would be in a separate trailer, as per the HAWK. Or, this could be what-iffed as a "Fire and Forget" version. Hmmm. Thanks so much!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 10, 2023, 05:51:52 AM
I wondered if repositioning the launcher pivot point futher to the rear and the launch rails as far back as not looking silly, would make the design seem more viable. VSHORAD missiles typically launched at only a few degrees elevation. But the HAWK is SHORAD and might be engaging higher altitude aircraft, and would probably need more elevation room. Or a launch rail like a Neva-125.

(http://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52805189891_70b0402bd8_o.jpg)

(http://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52805604385_93ed49f669_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 10, 2023, 10:26:04 AM
... Since the US is giving both the Stryker and Bradley to Ukraine, image giving to them as well both the M1128 MGS Strykers and M6 Lineback ADVs.

Reportedly the M1128 MGS sent to Ukraine have already seen action. Interestingly, the ZSU seems to be employing the M1128s as DFSVs in support of towed artillery.

I wondered if repositioning the launcher pivot point futher to the rear and the launch rails as far back as not looking silly...

Nice! I like your slimmed-down turret too (I may have been going a bit too 1950s!)  :smiley:

... Or a launch rail like a Neva-125.

Oh man! Had know that the Neva-125 existed, that's what you'd have got  ;D


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 10, 2023, 10:26:54 AM
Another quickie ... the 1998 Australian Army MRV-2 - aka M113AS4 FSV.

The MRV-2 was an M113AS4 hull fitted with the ASLAV-25's Delco turret for a direct fire-support role. Compared with the original MRV, the Delco turret was mounted at a more central position. This was to better-balance the turret's 4,000 lb weight.

The direct replacement for the original M113A1 MRV was actually the shorter-hulled MRV-3 - aka M113A3 FSV. The MRV-3 mounted a completely different turret - a Cadillac-Gage unit armed with a low-pressure Cockerill 90 mm gun.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 10, 2023, 11:26:51 AM
I like that! 8)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 11, 2023, 01:41:37 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 11, 2023, 03:11:48 AM
Oh man! Had know that the Neva-125 existed, that's what you'd have got  ;D


So I'm imagining the centurion lower hull with the dual "driver" hatches (similar to IDF MLRS MAR-90).

For the Neva-inspired HAWK, take the big block rear part of the Neva and replace it with the square base of the HAWK (minus the wheels, suspension, trunnion thingies, and outriggers). The dual SA-3 missiles and rack system is replaced by the treble HAWK launcher. Connecting the launcher to the squarish box is a large hydraulic ram (a la Neva) and some kind of pivoting brace at the base of the centre launch rail mount.

Pardon my MSPaint

(http://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52808040185_66c6bca456_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2023, 09:19:43 AM
MSPaint gets the job done  :smiley:

Only after having a look at the ungainly T-55 based S-125, did I realize the relative size of the V-601 missile versus HAWK! And 4 missiles mounted side-by-side on the S-125 was bonkers! (Try to avoid those narrow village lanes, tovarich!)

Anyway using an unmodified T-55 hull for the S-125 is exactly the sort of cost-efficiency-through-simplicity that we try to avoid here at Apophenia Enterprises! So, instead, here we propose a major redesign of the Centurion hull to accommodate the 'box' and turntable from the M192 HAWK launcher...

(To be continued ...)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on April 11, 2023, 09:21:24 AM
To accommodate the M192 'box', the Centurion's R-R Meteor engine is moved forward into the former turret location. Since the 'box' sits higher than the original driveshaft, the latter can simply be extended back to the final drive system. Power takeoffs from that extended shaft drive twin generators which charge banks of lead-acid batteries to provide power for the the M192 'box'.

In the section views (based on a Bovington drawing), the revised layout is a little hard to 'read'. So, I've colour-coded many of the hull's component changes.

BTW, the view with missiles mounted features a commander's hatch (the lower view had just duplicated the driver's hatch).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 11, 2023, 06:18:25 PM
That looks very buildable & may get added to the space-time warping list of projects to be done, as I have several Centurions & a Hawk launcher. :smiley:

Thinks for a couple of seconds;

Mind you, my Royal Australian Marines use Merkavas; & I have a pair of the venerable Tamiya Merkava 1's amongst my 6-or-7 Merkava kits which might make good AAM carriers. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on April 12, 2023, 01:26:25 AM
That also looks very similar to something I have planned with a combination of one of these:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/hEUAAOSwDc5j8sFa/s-l1600.png)

With one of these:

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1957/1093/products/s-l1600_15_30f8c52a-5f0a-4ef1-80a4-13860de3b136_1600x.jpg?v=1613311596)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 13, 2023, 04:41:17 AM
To accommodate the M192 'box', the Centurion's R-R Meteor engine is moved forward into the former turret location. Since the 'box' sits higher than the original driveshaft, the latter can simply be extended back to the final drive system. Power takeoffs from that extended shaft drive twin generators which charge banks of lead-acid batteries to provide power for the the M192 'box'.

In the section views (based on a Bovington drawing), the revised layout is a little hard to 'read'. So, I've colour-coded many of the hull's component changes.

BTW, the view with missiles mounted features a commander's hatch (the lower view had just duplicated the driver's hatch).

Oh my. Should have sent a poet.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on April 13, 2023, 04:43:45 AM
That looks very buildable & may get added to the space-time warping list of projects to be done, as I have several Centurions & a Hawk launcher. :smiley:

Thinks for a couple of seconds;

Mind you, my Royal Australian Marines use Merkavas; & I have a pair of the venerable Tamiya Merkava 1's amongst my 6-or-7 Merkava kits which might make good AAM carriers. ;)

The front engined Merk allows for the AD crew to be situated in the rear hull...an ADATS turret on a Merk would be better than real life!
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on April 13, 2023, 07:14:36 AM
That looks very buildable & may get added to the space-time warping list of projects to be done, as I have several Centurions & a Hawk launcher. :smiley:

Thinks for a couple of seconds;

Mind you, my Royal Australian Marines use Merkavas; & I have a pair of the venerable Tamiya Merkava 1's amongst my 6-or-7 Merkava kits which might make good AAM carriers. ;)

The front engined Merk allows for the AD crew to be situated in the rear hull...an ADATS turret on a Merk would be better than real life!

Should I mention that I have a M113 ADATS conversion set, too? ??? ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 01, 2023, 10:29:47 AM
Dunno why but I have a soft spot for the Sunbeam Alpine - the ugly duckling of 1960s British sports cars.

One of the more intriguing variants was the Le Mans series of 'fixed top' mods by Thomas Harrington & Sons - especially the series D with Jag E-Type style rear hatch.. Harrington tanked in 1966. So, I'm reviving the firm as the what-if Harrington & Sons Coachworks circa 1970 to do aftermarket upgrades of existing Sunbeam Alpine and Tiger sports cars.

Here, I present the Harrington series F modification - aka Sunbeam Alpine Le Mans GTE (for Harrington series E).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 09, 2023, 05:00:46 AM
Dunno why but I have a soft spot for the Sunbeam Alpine - the ugly duckling of 1960s British sports cars.

One of the more intriguing variants was the Le Mans series of 'fixed top' mods by Thomas Harrington & Sons - especially the series D with Jag E-Type style rear hatch.. Harrington tanked in 1966. So, I'm reviving the firm as the what-if Harrington & Sons Coachworks circa 1970 to do aftermarket upgrades of existing Sunbeam Alpine and Tiger sports cars.

Here, I present the Harrington series F modification - aka Sunbeam Alpine Le Mans GTE (for Harrington series E).
Beautiful!!  Now do one from a Sunbeam Tiger.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 10, 2023, 06:17:17 AM
Beautiful!!  Now do one from a Sunbeam Tiger.

Thanks Evan! As for the Sunbeam Tiger, that has to remain a convertible! Instead, a scenario ...

In the RW, the Rootes Group approached Ferrari to supply a V8 to power a 'Super Alpine. The obvious candidate was a mass-produced version of Ferrari's Tipo 205/B V8 - a 90°, 1.5 L (91 cid) engine. Quite sensibly, Ferrari refused to commit to supplying in comparatively large numbers what was effectively a hand-made engine.

So, what if Rootes didn't want to merely compete with AC. Instead, they wanted a 'Cobra Killer'. Forget Ford's 260 cid (4.2 L) iron-block boat-anchor. How about an aluminium BMW V8 instead?

What-If: Rootes-Sunbeam Introduce BMW Aluminium V8s in 1965

Negotiations with Ferrari were looking unproductive but some bright-light at Rootes noted the trouble that BMW had created for itself with the US-aimed BMW 507 grand tourer. By 1965, the aluminium BMW V8 was due to be replaced by the more economical 6-cylinder BMW M30. (This 'old' V8 had the same arrangement as the Buick 215 cid V8 then just taken-over by Rover - ie: the BMW was a push-rod OHV V8 with aluminium alloy block and heads construction.) After a quick-and-dirty prototype conversion (the 'BMW-Alpine'), Rootes offered to buy rights and tooling for the M532 V8 engine from BMW.

Priority was adapting the German engine to UK production standards (with Imperial fasteners, etc.). The BMW stroke of 2.95 inches (75 mm) was retained but bore was slightly increased to 3.25 inches (82.55 mm instead of 82 mm). [1] The result was a 195 cid (3,208 cc) V8 in Imperial measures. For the Sunbeam range, the high-lift cams from the earlier M507/1 engine were restored. [2] The resulting V8 produced 170 hp at 5,600 rpm - which compared well with AC's Ford 260 V8 producing 164 bhp at 4,400 rpm. More importantly, aluminium alloy construction meant that the Rootes 195 weighed only 325 lbs compared with over 480 lbs for the iron-block Ford.

What-If Sunbeam Alpine and Sunbeam Tiger Series Vs Line Up

The Sunbeam Alpine for 1965 held over the old Rootes 1,592 cc (97.1 cid) 4-banger but with a slight power increase due to adopting a Zenith 36 NDIX 2-barrel carburettor. The new Sunbeam Tiger introduced the Rootes 195 cid aluminium V8 engine. Twin Zenith carbs dictated a central hood scoop (both for induction and extra 'head space') but, otherwise, the Tiger was indistinguishable from the Alpine sports car.

In 1966, Sunbeam introduced the Alpine Series V. This sports car featured an entirely new, 1.6 L (97.5 cid) aluminium-block 4-cylinder engine - effectively 'half' of a 3.2 L V8. The rest is history ...

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 12, 2023, 12:18:41 PM
ISTR that there were a few Sumbeam Tiger coupes, but it's been a fair while since I read about them.  Stil, I love your alternate proposal.  It would be amusing if AC was to purchase engines from Sunbeam.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on May 16, 2023, 07:33:58 AM
Following another suggestion from Sport25ing ...

Shtormova tin' - The Ukrainian Storm Shadow in Action

An ex-RAF Panavia Tornado GR.4 in Ukrainian markings. This Tornado carries the individual aircraft number 'Bilyy 57', Ukrainian gold/blue roundel on its wings, and the Trizub on its tail. Ukrainian colours also surmount the tailplane. On those colour bands is marked VYSOKOPILLYA - a name commemorating a small Ukrainian village in the Kherson region destroyed by Russian occupiers. [1]

The ex-RAF Tornados had been brought out of retirement storage specifically to carry the Storm Shadow cruise missiles donated to Ukraine. 'Bilyy 57' was the first PSU Tornado to launch Storm Shadows 'in anger'. Near dawn on 23 July 2023, three Ukrainian Tornados each launched two 'Shtormova tin'' missiles against targets in Crimea - including  Sevastopol Naval Base on the west coast and Gvardeyskoye Air Base in central Crimea. [2]

_______________________________

[1] Vysokopillya was occupied by Putin's troops on 13 March 2022. By the time that the Ukrainians liberated the village in early September, Vysokopillya lay in total ruins.

[2] Simultaneously, PSU ADM-160 MALD decoy missiles were also launched at 'targets' near Sevastopol - the Khersones tactical UAV base and Saky Air Base.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Sport25ing on May 16, 2023, 03:35:20 PM
see, an excellent work  :D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on May 16, 2023, 03:40:48 PM
Nice! 8)

We can only hope! :icon_meditation:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on May 17, 2023, 01:42:09 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: elmayerle on May 24, 2023, 09:57:02 AM
Very nice, indeed.  It's too bad TSSAM was cancelled when it was, Northrop-Grumman was going to propose an AGM-137C "TSSAM-ER" for the competition won by Storm Shadow.  IT would have been 1 foot longer than the AGM-137A with the extra module inserted just ahead of the wings.  IT would have had the same sensor options that AGM-137A had.

Such might make an interesting whiff since it was an all-aspect stealthy missile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 12, 2023, 03:56:04 AM
I've mounted a question about potential armour improvements for Ukraine-bound Leopard 1A5s in the Engineering Dept. section:

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10763.msg208882
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on June 22, 2023, 04:07:49 AM
Inspired by Carlos' musings, I've put together a hypothetical US analogue to the German MP44 Sturmgewehr. In other words, a WW2 US assault rifle. The idea is that a new and longer-ranged round was developed in place of the OTL Thompson Automatic Carbine (although I've kept that weapon's 16.5-inch barrel).

Through the miracle of time-travel, the design team chose a 33 mm case (based on a much-shortened 30-06 rifle cartridge and bullet). The result had more stopping-power than the .30 Carbine cartridge and more range than the .45 ACP.

Out of laziness, I've just given this US assault rifle a magazine derived from the MP44. For PDW use, I've shown a more compact 20-round mag plus the bog-standard MP44 type. I've lengthened the receiver to take a longer recoil spring (not sure if that'd be needed - maybe just a stouter spring in the standard M1A1 receiver?).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on June 22, 2023, 08:22:54 AM
Think I'd prefer a beefed-up version of Carlos' M1-Carbine/M1-Thompson SMG mash-up, although the select fire M2 Carbine may be a better starting point.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 04, 2023, 09:31:28 AM
Finally! Ukraine gets some Western fighters  :smiley:

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1112.msg209374#msg209374

Khouker Urahan = 'Shahed Killer'  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on July 04, 2023, 12:10:38 PM
hmmm...
Would the Ukrainian pilots want a full bubble canopy?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 04, 2023, 11:11:56 PM
 ;D ;D :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 05, 2023, 01:13:00 AM
Thanks Guy.

hmmm...
Would the Ukrainian pilots want a full bubble canopy?

Probably. Alas, all that was available to them for the Urahan update were rear canopies from scrapped Aero L-29 Delfin found in the Kyiv boneyard.

BTW: Engine installation (1,376 shp PT6A-65R) and sensor pack (Wescam MX-15 E/O turret) were inspired by the Iomax Archangel.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 05, 2023, 01:41:19 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 14, 2023, 06:50:47 AM
As a pedestrian, I worry that modern American pickup trucks just aren't big enough ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ChernayaAkula on July 14, 2023, 07:56:29 AM
Waiting for the doubledecker-cab, London bus-style.  ;D

The Thompson Assault Rifle is pretty neat.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on July 20, 2023, 02:40:57 AM
Following another suggestion from Sport25ing ...

Shtormova tin' - The Ukrainian Storm Shadow in Action

An ex-RAF Panavia Tornado GR.4 in Ukrainian markings. This Tornado carries the individual aircraft number 'Bilyy 57', Ukrainian gold/blue roundel on its wings, and the Trizub on its tail. Ukrainian colours also surmount the tailplane. On those colour bands is marked VYSOKOPILLYA - a name commemorating a small Ukrainian village in the Kherson region destroyed by Russian occupiers. [1]

The ex-RAF Tornados had been brought out of retirement storage specifically to carry the Storm Shadow cruise missiles donated to Ukraine. 'Bilyy 57' was the first PSU Tornado to launch Storm Shadows 'in anger'. Near dawn on 23 July 2023, three Ukrainian Tornados each launched two 'Shtormova tin'' missiles against targets in Crimea - including  Sevastopol Naval Base on the west coast and Gvardeyskoye Air Base in central Crimea. [2]

_______________________________

[1] Vysokopillya was occupied by Putin's troops on 13 March 2022. By the time that the Ukrainians liberated the village in early September, Vysokopillya lay in total ruins.

[2] Simultaneously, PSU ADM-160 MALD decoy missiles were also launched at 'targets' near Sevastopol - the Khersones tactical UAV base and Saky Air Base.

I like that!

However, as much as I love the Tornado and the idea of pulling the RAF ones out of mothballs, I'd be concerned about the two man crew aspect. Would Ukraine spare the personnel for squadrons of two seat fast jets.

My idea would be to send surplus two seat Typhoons with the rear cockpits stripped out for an extra fuel cell or some extra ECM gear or some such.

One person can operate it without issue and it is Storm Shadow capable.

The view outward would be some better than the Tornado as well.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 20, 2023, 06:57:31 AM
Nice! Yes, by all means, send Typhoons! Especially if there is a surplus of two-seaters  :smiley:

BTW, I see that the Su-24MRs have been fitted with modified Tornado pylons (or parts thereof) to carry their Storm Shadows. So, bits of the old RAF Tornados did make it to Ukraine  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on July 20, 2023, 07:38:06 PM
Nice! Yes, by all means, send Typhoons! Especially if there is a surplus of two-seaters  :smiley:

BTW, I see that the Su-24MRs have been fitted with modified Tornado pylons (or parts thereof) to carry their Storm Shadows. So, bits of the old RAF Tornados did make it to Ukraine  ;D

I think I read somewhere that simulators are so good these days that the RAF felt that the need for two seat versions of fast jets was much reduced and that the training unit for Typhoons could be made up of mostly single seat machines. As a result, they retired a number of two seat Typhoons starting in 2018 or so. If those two seat Typhoons were still intact and in storage, they'd have relatively few hours on them.

However, I'm not sure what the RAF might have actually done with them in the real world.

As you point out, the Ukrainians already have the Su-24. It's a contemporary of the Tornado, so I'm not sure the Ukrainians would benefit that much from having another aircraft of the same class if they could have something more modern. Also, the Tornado would just give them one more VG type to pour maintenance hours into.

I have a feeling that a modern fixed wing type would be somewhat less maintenance intensive and have better mission readiness than another aging VG type.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 25, 2023, 04:43:39 AM
I had never really investigated the French AMX-30 before. A little research revealed just what un vrai chien de char the AMX-30 really was! The lightest of armour of any MBT; wholly unreliable drivetrain; non-standard main gun; ...  :o

The only positives I could find were a relatively light weight - 500 kg lighter than the Leo 1 (mostly by sacrificing armour protection) - and a correspondingly low ground pressure. Can anyone think of any other pluses for this mutt of an MBT?

Having jumped the gun of processing an AMX-30 image, I was stuck trying to imagine improvements to this vehicle. Up-armour? Nope, already underpowered for the 750 hp available power (when working). Re-engining? Why waste a EuroPowerPack (or similar) on an AMX when you could refurb more plentiful Leopard 1s instead?

So, I defaulted to a pair of my old hobby horses - direct fire-support vehicles and 'diesel armour'. My AMX-30/CR60 (char de reconnaissance) is a rebuild based on the AMX-30B2 with a Renault-Mack E9 V8 - producing the same 750 hp as the dreadful original HS 110 V12 but much more reliable. The CN 105 F1 gun is replaced by a 60 mm CN60-70 B1 SMHV - this canon de soutien moyen à haute vélocité being an HVMS 60/70 gun licensed from OTO-Melara.

After the BRENUS ERA system was rejected (due to its adding 1.7 metric tons of weight), the Swedish solution of adding jerrican 'diesel armour' was adopted. When full, this 'diesel armour' added about 500 kg to loaded weight (~435 kg of that being fuel). However, that was balanced by the armament change (which saved 1,470 kg in gun weight - although the AMX-30/CR60 generally carried a heavier ammunition load than an AMX-30B2.) Rubber dust skirts were applied beneath the 'diesel armour'. Turret protection was also improved with add-on armour applied to the frontal arc.

The idea here is that 60 mm APDSFS-T would be ideal for plinking IFVs while HE-T fragmentation would serve in the anti-infantry role. Probably 'lipstick on a pig' but any thoughts?

__________________________

BTW: This image is based on a photo of a preserved AMX-30 marked as 'CDT BOSSUT' - Commandant Bossut having been killed in his Schneider tank during the assault on Juvincourt on 16 April 1917. I've named my AMX-30/CR60 'MdL DUIF' - the Maréchal des Logis having been killed just prior to Bossut.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on July 25, 2023, 06:50:59 PM
I have an AMX-30B2 in the stash that I bought with the idea of making it a RAM's recce tank but I hadn't (& still haven't) done any research on the vehicle - I (Like, in, possibly, typical French fashion, the Armée de Terre?) just though it looked good.

Know of any good late-70's/early-80's 800+hp diesel/transmission systems that would work if the RAM's bought AMX-30 shells & filled them with their own goodies?

Would the British L7 105mm gun fit?

 ??? ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on July 25, 2023, 11:25:47 PM
I think a "Recce in force" role is a decent option for a mechanized Bde recce sqn. Provides combat overwatch for a two vehicle recce det, ie when paired up with a smaller (size / gun) AFV with a dedicated surveillance suite. Reminds me a bit of the Danish upgrades to the M-41-DK that saw it soldiering through almost to the new millenium.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2023, 06:15:31 AM
... Know of any good late-70's/early-80's 800+hp diesel/transmission systems that would work if the RAM's bought AMX-30 shells & filled them with their own goodies?

Would the British L7 105mm gun fit?

Guy: For a RAM AMX-30, you could follow the real-world Spanish AMX-30E modernisation programme. For the top-end mod, Santa Bárbara dumped the French HS-110/5SD-200D combo entirely in favour of a German MTU 833 Ka 501 (850 hp) driving a ZF LSG 3000.

I'm not sure whether an L7 would fit but, if it did, you're adding on another 350 kg for little real benefit. AIUI, the downside of the CN 105 F1 was that slow twist meant it couldn't fire APDS. But, by the period you're talking about, those rounds were being eclipsed by APFSDS anyway. There, the modèle F1 was no slouch - firing APFDS-T rounds at 1,525 m/s (vs. 1,475 m/s for the L7). I assume that difference is due to the F1's L/56 barrel (vs. L/52 for the L7's).

That said, I also note that the French later adopted a Rheinmetall L7 - the Rh 105-20 - for its wheeled AMX-10RC. So, maybe more is going on behind the scenes there?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 26, 2023, 06:17:02 AM
I think a "Recce in force" role is a decent option for a mechanized Bde recce sqn. Provides combat overwatch for a two vehicle recce det, ie when paired up with a smaller (size / gun) AFV with a dedicated surveillance suite. Reminds me a bit of the Danish upgrades to the M-41-DK that saw it soldiering through almost to the new millenium.

Thanks Graeme ... I'd forgotten about the M41 DK-1! Yeah, a good example of 'recycling' to get a recce-in-force vehicle. And, as you say, they saw 38 years of useful service. Not bad for armour originally received free of charge. Canny folk, those Danes  ;)

Plus, with those new tracks skirts and draped in camo net, you get a bonus in the M41 DK-1 looking like a cute, cartoon/mini version of the Leopard 1A5-DK  :smiley:


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 28, 2023, 03:00:38 AM
Another simple retouch with a long-winded backstory. This time, Ukraine's Sukhoi Su-24MEV Voron (Raven) ECM Jamming Platform.

'Electric Fencer'

In June 2023, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev met with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Moldova. One result was a pledge to open a second Azerbaijan Honorary Consulate in Ukraine - this time in nearby Odesa. Before the new honorary consulate could even be opened, the Hretska Street premises were damaged in the same Russian missile attack which ravaged the Spaso-Preobrazhensky cathedral World Heritage site. The Honorary Consul of Azerbaijan in Odesa, Nihad Isayev, was lightly wounded in the explosion.

The Baku government had been doing all it could to tread a line of neutrality in the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Now President Aliyev requested more direct support for Ukraine - albeit, still to be done quietly to avoid the ire of Moscow. The plan arrived at was to deliver 11 x retired Azerbaijani Air & Air Defence Force (AHHQ) Su-24M airframes through Turkey to Ukraine. Seven of these partly-disassembled airframes would be delivered by rail directly to Lviv. These would act as a source of spares for Ukrainian Su-24, Su-24M, and Su-24MR aircraft. The remaining four airframes - those in the best condition - were sent to Bulgaria for restoration.

Ukrainian-Bulgarian cooperation had begun in earnest when it was arranged for VVS MiG-29 engines to be refurbished at the Lutskyi Remontnyi Zavod Motor DP (north-east of Lviv) instead of in Russia. Shortly before, Russia had begun cancelling the certifications of long-standing aircraft repair facilities in Bulgaria. As a result, it was agreed that Azerbaijani Su-24M restoration work would be performed by the now-underworked Avionams AD at Plovdiv. This would be no simple job since these AHHQ aircraft had been in open storage since at least December of 2021. However, the work was about to become even more complex.

A separate arrangement had been made between Kyiv and Washington. While Avionams restored the basic airframes and engines of the Su-24s, modifications were to be designed by a joint team based in Sofia. This team was a joint effort by personnel from Ukraine's Nikolaev Aircraft Repair Plant and the US aerospace giant, Lockheed Martin. LM was to provide equipment and systems recovered from mothballed General Dynamics–Grumman EF-111A ECM aircraft. NARP were responsible for physically integrating the antennae and equipment on the Su-24M airframe.

Work was complete by the early Autumn of 2023 with the 'Electric Fencers' sporting distinctive fin-tip 'pyrohy' pods for AN/ALQ-99E jamming system receivers. Transmitters were placed in a 4.9 m long ventral 'kanoe' radome. The four rebuilt Su-24MEV (for Su-24M Elektronna viyna) electronic warfare aircraft entered UA service in October 2023. As such, the 'Em-Ve' were in time to play an airborne jamming role in Ukraine's decisive November 2023 strikes against the Russian Black Sea Fleet ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 30, 2023, 02:06:03 AM
I had never really investigated the French AMX-30 before. A little research revealed just what un vrai chien de char the AMX-30 really was! The lightest of armour of any MBT; wholly unreliable drivetrain; non-standard main gun; ...  :o

The only positives I could find were a relatively light weight - 500 kg lighter than the Leo 1 (mostly by sacrificing armour protection) - and a correspondingly low ground pressure. Can anyone think of any other pluses for this mutt of an MBT?

Having jumped the gun of processing an AMX-30 image, I was stuck trying to imagine improvements to this vehicle. Up-armour? Nope, already underpowered for the 750 hp available power (when working). Re-engining? Why waste a EuroPowerPack (or similar) on an AMX when you could refurb more plentiful Leopard 1s instead?


It could have been interesting if the 142-millimeter gun able to fire the supersonic ACRA (Anti-Char Rapide Autopropulsé)[85] anti-tank guided missile, as well as high explosive rounds was adopted into service:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/AMX30ACRA.jpg)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/dcKXYhLYk7b-pYWuzxVOWX6C22Odg8WMAuRftFFFIyw.jpg?auto=webp&s=8dda7467f6289048b4ed2fbe62cd852a846bab51)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 30, 2023, 02:14:28 AM
Guy: For a RAM AMX-30, you could follow the real-world Spanish AMX-30E modernisation programme. For the top-end mod, Santa Bárbara dumped the French HS-110/5SD-200D combo entirely in favour of a German MTU 833 Ka 501 (850 hp) driving a ZF LSG 3000.


This sounds somewhat similar to the late 1980s Super AMX-30 modernization package for AMX-30B. The upgrades to the power packs were new MTU MB833 Ka501 diesel engine with 850 hp, ZF LSG-3000 automatic transmission, new engine cooling system, and increased fuel capacity up to 1,028 liters. The upgrades on mobility also included upgraded torsion bars, hydraulic shock absorbers, new slightly larger road wheels, and Diehl Type 234 tracks. The fire control systems were upgraded with MOLF-30 modular laser FCS by Krupp Atlas Elektronik, gyro-stabilized gun and gunner's day/night sight, laser rangefinder, and fully electric turret drive. Optional additional armour on the turret also available per buyer request. A single prototype was made and were publicly unveiled and tested in Saudi Arabia. The upgrade failed to find a buyer.

'There was also the AMX-32 development.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on July 30, 2023, 02:42:11 AM
More AMX-30 inspiration (such as Israeli AMX-30s...hint, hint) here (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9890.msg187009#msg187009)



Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 30, 2023, 08:50:42 AM
Guy: For a RAM AMX-30, you could follow the real-world Spanish AMX-30E modernisation programme. For the top-end mod, Santa Bárbara dumped the French HS-110/5SD-200D combo entirely in favour of a German MTU 833 Ka 501 (850 hp) driving a ZF LSG 3000.


This sounds somewhat similar to the late 1980s Super AMX-30 modernization package for AMX-30B. The upgrades to the power packs were new MTU MB833 Ka501 diesel engine with 850 hp, ZF LSG-3000 automatic transmission, new engine cooling system, and increased fuel capacity up to 1,028 liters. The upgrades on mobility also included upgraded torsion bars, hydraulic shock absorbers, new slightly larger road wheels, and Diehl Type 234 tracks. The fire control systems were upgraded with MOLF-30 modular laser FCS by Krupp Atlas Elektronik, gyro-stabilized gun and gunner's day/night sight, laser rangefinder, and fully electric turret drive. Optional additional armour on the turret also available per buyer request. A single prototype was made and were publicly unveiled and tested in Saudi Arabia. The upgrade failed to find a buyer.

'There was also the AMX-32 development.

Yes, Santa Bárbara's premium upgrade was very much like the Super AMX-30. But mention of the AMX-32 has the cogs a-turnin'. Hmmm ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on July 31, 2023, 10:05:10 AM
Scenario: On 30 Sept 2022, Norway's two Dassault Falcon 20ECMs - or 'DA-20 Jet Falcons' as they were known in Norway - were finally stood down after almost 50 years of service. I don't know what has become of ex-RNoAF 041 ('Hugin') and 053 ('Munin') but, being as old as they are, I'm guessing that they sit in storage. [1] But is there not still useful work that Odin's companions could be performing?

The Falcon 20ECMs' old unit - 717 Skvadron (Forsvarets EK-Støttesenter) - is not due to be disbanded until 2024. So, were Norway to donate 'Hugin' and 'Munin' to Ukraine, a nucleus for training on these electronic warfare platforms still exists at Rygge (south of Oslo).

Ukrainian Air Force Dassault Sokil 20 ECM

My image of a UA Falcon 20 - or Sokil in Ukrainian - shows its Norwegian scheme overpainted with Ukrainian roundels and other markings. No other changes have been made. The aircraft has been given the new name 'Dast'bi' for alliteration with 'Dassault'. The word translates as something like '[God] will provide' by implies denial by all others. In other words, the 'Rashists' must appeal to their deity to give back what Ukrainian ECM will deny them. Associated with 'Dast'bi' is an Othodox icon of the Arkhanhel Mykhail.

"Today we pray: O archangel Michael and all the powers of heaven, fight for Ukraine! Cast down that devil who is attacking us and killing us, bringing devastation and death!"

________________________________________________

[1] It would seem unlikely that heavily-modified, 50-year-old bizjets would have much resale value on the civilian market. The aircraft may still have utility as ECM platforms - Norway now employing the P-8A for that role - but finding acceptable buyers would be another matter.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on July 31, 2023, 12:49:05 PM
The Ukrainian Falcon looks great.

The Norwegians brought one to a show here in the Czech Republic a few years ago.

The crew told me the Falcons were pretty much clocked out on frame hours. As such, I imagine they are only fit for museum purposes now.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 02, 2023, 03:37:19 AM
... The crew told me the Falcons were pretty much clocked out on frame hours. As such, I imagine they are only fit for museum purposes now.

Doubtless that is true 'north. If some other nation wants to donate something 'younger' for ECM, that'd be great.

That said, I'd lean toward the idea that if the Falcon 20ECMs are flyable, they are usable. Not ideal perhaps but with a capability currently lacking in UA's arsenal.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on August 02, 2023, 12:24:01 PM
... The crew told me the Falcons were pretty much clocked out on frame hours. As such, I imagine they are only fit for museum purposes now.

Doubtless that is true 'north. If some other nation wants to donate something 'younger' for ECM, that'd be great.

That said, I'd lean toward the idea that if the Falcon 20ECMs are flyable, they are usable. Not ideal perhaps but with a capability currently lacking in UA's arsenal.

Sounds like a job for maybe some King Airs with the right mods. I know there are EW modified King Air variants out there.

Maybe give them some suitable King Airs to hold the line while they await delivery of their promised Falcon 8X based Archange EW machines in the late 2020s. ;-)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 03, 2023, 01:08:20 AM
Some RC-12s perhaps?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Beechcraft_RC-12N_Huron_in_flight.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 03, 2023, 07:46:36 AM
I guess the big question here is: Are slow-flying ECM platforms like the Guardrail viable in contested airspace?

If not, the logical follow-on question would be: Are bizjet-based ECM platforms any more viable in contested airspace?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on August 03, 2023, 12:39:04 PM
Are airliner-based ECM platforms viable in contested airspace?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: upnorth on August 03, 2023, 12:54:58 PM
I guess the big question here is: Are slow-flying ECM platforms like the Guardrail viable in contested airspace?

If not, the logical follow-on question would be: Are bizjet-based ECM platforms any more viable in contested airspace?

A fair point, that.

As I think about the current situation of Ukrainian air space, those sorts of assets would need to be applied quite clandestinely at the moment.

Say a willing NATO nation that had a border with Ukraine allowed the aircraft to be based on their territory and operated over their airspace so the aircraft systems could reach into Ukrainian airspace from outside.

However, that opens an entirley bigger can of political worms that I think NATO might not go for...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on August 04, 2023, 02:17:16 AM
If one used them back behind the front lines in a careful manner then yes.  If you try to do so in range of enemy air defences then definitely not.  Hence why UAVs have a greater role...and even they are being shot down in large numbers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 04, 2023, 03:32:13 AM
If one used them back behind the front lines in a careful manner then yes.  If you try to do so in range of enemy air defences then definitely not.  Hence why UAVs have a greater role...and even they are being shot down in large numbers.

Part of my Falcon 20 for Ukraine concept was to get ECM out over the Black Sea. Sounds like that is really a job for (attritable) UAVs.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on August 18, 2023, 08:20:58 AM
Goofing around with the Freedom Fighter ...

Probably one of the least attractive fighter modifications ever was Northrop Grumman's 2003 F-5E SSBD (Shaped Sonic Boom Demonstration) conversion. [1] But it got me wondering about a CF-5 mod that would solve the Tinker-Toy's designed-in fuel crisis while also providing space in the nose for a radar antenna worthy of a CF-18 FLIT.

The idea is that a whiffily-backdated version of that ungainly, drooped snout would house a usefully-sized radar antenna - I'm thinking Westinghouse AN/APG-68 rather than the chunkier Hughes AN/APG-65 of the CF-18 - while the underbelly fairing behind the nose wheel bay acts as a conformal fuel tank. In this scheme, all single-seat CF-5s (CF116As) would be rebuilt with 2-seat cockpits à la the CF116D in order to best act as lead-in trainers for the CF-18As. So, permanent LAU-7/A launchers mounted for AIM-9Ms or, later, ACMI pods ... no more wingtip tanks needed.

Illustrated is Bristol Aerospace's demonstrator based on CF116D 116834. This airframe would later be destroyed as a part of the Government of Canada's second out-of-court settlement with the Northrop Corporation.

_________________________________________________

[1] The SSBD conversion was part of DARPA's Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) programme aimed at reducing the intensity of sonic booms.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Gingie on August 19, 2023, 05:08:42 AM
Profile reminds a little bit of a T-2 Buckeye
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 01, 2023, 09:44:49 AM
Close-In Demining for the Ukrainian Counter-Offensive

The question came up elsewhere about what to do with available but turretless Leopard 1 hulls. My answer was a Leopard 1A5 hull fitted with the flail and other mine-clearing gear from the Bundeswehr's M48-based MiRPz Keiler. The difficulty with that concept is the time that it would take to re-tailor that Keiler and produce it for a Minenräumpanzer conversion for the Leopard 1 hull.

A simpler - and quicker to implement - scheme would be converting Leopard 1 hulls into assault breacher vehicles kitted out to launch Mine Clearing Line Charges (MICLICs). The mounting should be of 'universal' NATO type - equally able to launch British Pythons (as shown) or US Linear Demolition Charge Systems (LDCS).

I've called this conversion the Leo-Piton since the British Python system has been mounted. If the US system was installed instead, it would become the Leo-LSZZ (Liniyna systema zaryadu dlya znesennya).

The tactical advantages of such conversions would be two-fold. First, despite being lightly armoured for a tank, the Leopard 1 hull is well-protected compared to most demining line charge launch vehicles. Second, is the high reverse speed of the Leopard 1A5. In other words, the Leo-Piton will be able to launch its charges and then, using its two reverse gears, back away at 26-to-28 km/h without exposing its more lightly-armoured sides or rear to hostile fire.

I've cheated a bit on the original question because my conversion actually starts off fitted with a turret - albeit a non-standard one. Unlike other Leopard 1A5s, the Danish Leopard 1A5 DK model retained the old welded turret. For my Leo-Piton conversion, the ex-Danish Leo turret has been heavily modified. With the mantlet removed, the front of the turret has been given an extreme slope. Aft of its forward-moved crew positions, the turret has been 'bobbed' to create space for Python or LDCS containers and their launch rockets.

Anybody have any thoughts of the viability of such a line-charge launcher conversion in the Real World?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on September 01, 2023, 08:16:11 PM
Like most armour, if supported by infantry &. in this case, other AFV's (including gun tanks) it should have a fairly good chance of being successfully deployed
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 02, 2023, 02:57:35 AM
Another options for turret less Leo 1s would be to install a ATGM launcher in its place - perhaps even something like the ground launched Hellfires see here:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/AGM-114HellfireHMMWV.jpg)

or even here:

(https://www.lcsun-news.com/gcdn/-mm-/9a10d18443197ab9a2a837953a60ea6375b5467c/c=4-0-1916-1080/local/-/media/2016/04/17/TXNMGroup/LasCruces/635965060416573177-Hellfire-Extract.jpg?width=660&height=373&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 05, 2023, 09:27:43 AM
Thanks folks.

Next up for turretless Leopard 1s is the MiRPz Keiler 2 - a mine-clearing flail conversion. As the name suggests, this is Rheinmetall's earlier Minenräumpanzer gear installed on a Leopard 1A5 hull.

More on this later ... when it forms the basis of an Engineering Dept. discussion.

[edit] Now up: https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.0
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on September 06, 2023, 01:05:05 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on September 22, 2023, 06:06:40 AM
Another from the Engineering Dept. discussion Mineclearing Flail Tanks for Ukraine:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.0

This time, another hypothetical Leopard 1 conversion with an Aardvark RACE A-inspired hydraulically-driven mine flail.

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10845.msg211578#msg211578
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 09, 2023, 10:18:29 AM
Getting Gripens to Ukraine - Scenarios

This is a lead-in to a profile (in the next post) ...

___________________________________________


Scenario 1: Sweden surrenders some Gripen fighters from Flygvapnet stocks. [1] At present, Sweden has tied delivery of Gripens to Ukraine to accession to NATO (presumably hoping that their future allies will put pressure on Turkey rather than pointlessly pandering to Erdogan).

This is the most probable RW scenario for the appearance of Saab JAS Gripen fighters in Ukraine. Sweden diverts some of the Gripen C fighters from their planned Flygvapnet upgrade programme and redirects them to Ukraine.

___________________________________________

Scenario 2: The Czech government releases its fleet of 14 x Gripens for use in Ukraine.

Prague had been in discussions to extend their lease of 14 x Gripens. Instead a joint US-Swedish offer was accepted to replace these aircraft with a larger number of F-16 fighters from US ANG stocks. Under this deal, the 20 x Czech Air Force F-16Cs are due to serve until the arrival of 24 x F-35As. All CzAF 'Zmije' ('Vipers') will be single-seaters. Czech pilot-training on F-16Ds will occur under USAF auspices at Morris ANG base in Tucson, AZ.

___________________________________________

Scenario 3: Leased Hungarian Air Force Gripens are surrendered for use in Ukraine.

In late September 2023, Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán announced that Hungary was in no rush to approve Sweden's bid to join NATO. By way of response, the government of Sweden reversed its January 2012, approval for a lease extension on Hungarian Gripens to 2026. Effective 31 October 2023, supplies of Swedish spares and services were cancelled.

No compensation was given but Sweden offered to pay for the return of Magyar Légiero (HunAF) Gripens. The offer was left open until its expiry date of 30 November 2023. On Monday, 27 November, the Országgyulés approved payment terms for the return of all 14 x HunAF Gripens.

Swedish pilots collected the HunAF lease aircraft from Kecskemét AB to fly the 600 km hop to Poland's 23 Baza Lotnicza just east of Minsk Mazowiecki. Ukrainian pilots previously trained on Gripens in Sweden then picked up their new mounts at 23 BL for transfer to unspecified operational air bases in Ukraine.

___________________________________________

Scenario 4: Saab buys back Gripens from South African

After several years where SAAF Gripens were all inoperable due to spares shortage, a maintenance plan was agreed for the 13 x airframes in flying or near-flyable condition. To help fund this package, Pretoria agreed to Sweden's request to buy-back the 12 x South African Gripens held in long-term storage. The SAAF would retain 13 of these fighters in flying condition until they could be replaced by a new fighter aircraft type. At that point, the remaining 13 x Gripens would also be sold back to Saab.

While Saab refurbished the first dozen ex-SAAF Gripens for use in Ukraine, South Africa closed a deal with Indian brokers to purchase mothballed MiG-29s from Malaysia. Under this deal, 16 x ex-TUDM MiG-29S fighters were bought. Partially disassembled at RMAF Kuantan, the MiG-29 airframes were flown out by Indian Air Force IL-76MD Gajraj airlifters. Their initial destination was the IAF's No.11 Base Repair Depot at Ojhar (near Nashik, NE of Mumbai). In the meantime, SAAF pilots had been flight-training on IAF MiG-29UBs while South African maintenance crews - SAAF and civilian - had been familiarizing themselves with the MiG airframe.

At No.11 BRD, under the aegis of HAL, a dozen of the ex-TUDM fighters were overhauled and given a partial MiG-29UPG upgrade (the other 6 airframes were upgraded to full MiG-29UPG2 standards for delivery to the IAF). Once the upgrades were complete, experienced Indian pilots flew the 12 x MiG-29SA [3] fighters on a test-run south to Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala. The dozen fighters were then flown non-stop from TRV to South Africa accompanied by two IAF IL-78MKI in-flight refuelling tankers of No. 78 Squadron. [4] Upon arrival at SAAF AFB Makhado at Louis Tri in Limpopo, the twelve MiG-29SA fighters were officially turned over to South Africa.

___________________________________________

[1] Currently, the Flygvapnet operates 71 x Gripen C fighters and 23 x Gripen D 2-seaters.

[2] The leased CzAF Gripens are to serve alongside lighter Aero L-159 ALCAs.

[3] This MiG-29SA designation had previously been applied to a Slovak upgrade package but these aircraft had all been transferred to Ukraine in 2023. As upgrade by HAL/IAF, the MiG-29SAs lacked the UPG's advanced weapon control systems and EW suite as well as UPG22's AESA radar.

[4] SAAF pilots and support staff - now fully-trained on the MiG-29 - returned to South Africa aboard the two IL-78 FRA.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 09, 2023, 10:20:32 AM
PS ZSU (Ukrainian Air Force) Gripen C of the 288th ('Karpatskyy') IAP home-based at Starokostiantyniv. [1] Forward-based - at an undisclosed location - this fighter-bomber belongs to the 288th's udarnyy zahin (strike detachment).

An ex-Hungarian AF aircraft, 'Siryy 36' carries four US-supplied GBU-12 Paveway LGBs and associated Rafael AN/AAQ-28 Litening targeting pod. Also note the wingtip-mounted Diehl IRIS-T short-range AAMs. [1]

'Siryy 36' wears its original 'air superiority grey' scheme with HunAF insignia overpainted. Stand PS ZSU markings consist of the Ukrainian roundel in six positions and a tryzub stencilled onto the tail. Also on the tailfin is a simplified crest of the 288 IAP - the 'Wolf' emblem being the symbol of the entire Carpathian Legion.
____________________________


[1] For 6 months, PS ZSU Gripens flew with obsolete AIM-9M 'self defence' missiles on their wingtip pylons because IRIS-T delivery was repeatedly delayed by German Kanzler, Olaf Scholz.

ps: Found the base image through Google image but, alas, no idea who the original artist was  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 09, 2023, 05:01:59 PM
With Slovakia added to the anti-Ukrainian cabal within NATO, & the possibility that even Poland may swing that way after their election, getting NATO to agree to anything to help Ukraine, as an organisation, or to ever permitting their entry into the alliance, is looking less-&-less likely.

It's a real worry! :icon_crap:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 10, 2023, 04:22:48 AM
With Slovakia added to the anti-Ukrainian cabal within NATO, & the possibility that even Poland may swing that way after their election, getting NATO to agree to anything to help Ukraine, as an organisation, or to ever permitting their entry into the alliance, is looking less-&-less likely.

Agreed on Slovakia. A definite sign of things coming unstowed. IMHO, NATO suffers from similar 'tolerance' issues to those crippling the EU. At this stage, a decisive NATO leadership would push back against recalcitrant members.

Battlegroup Slovakia currently includes Czech, German, Slovenia, and US troops. Why continue to reward the likes of Fico et al? Instead, BG Slovakia should be stood down and its foreign troops redeployed to bolster eVA BG in Romania and BG Poland. Such a move might even please the attention-seeking Fico and his supporters but the AFSR and the rest of Slovak society would get the message.

What is the likelihood of this happening? Well, look at Hungary so far. The HUN eVA BG features Hungary as its own 'Framework Nation' - which obviously appealled to Orbán's vanity. It doesn't seem to matter what pro-Putin nonsense comes out of Budapest, Hungary continues to be a 'valued ally'. Maybe that should change too?

Were I Jens Stoltenberg, I'd be advocating the shut-down of HUN eVA BG. I'd move its Italian troops to Romania and its US and Croatian troops to Poland. Which brings up those Polish elections. If PiS is re-elected, I doubt that squabbles with Kyiv will continue - such 'tensions' were largely political constructs to rally the rural base of PiS. In the end, Poland knows very well that they need a strong Ukraine between them and Russia.

Another potential factor here is Gen Milley stepping down. I'm not sure when the General became so negative but, on Ukraine, Milley has been a complete 'Despair Squid'. Mind you, Gen Brown's 'Accelerate Change' motto doesn't seem to apply to Kyiv either. Despite being a former F-16 jockey, Brown has been part of Washington's go-slow on getting Western fighters to Ukraine. Will he change his tune now that his is Chair? We wait with bated breath ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on October 10, 2023, 11:32:54 AM
The previous Slovakian government a lot of their good stuff to Ukraine.   They are now effectively without an Air Force, and they also furnished a lot of Soviet era APCs and tje like.  The trouble is no one under 40 really remembers what Soviet occupation days were like. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 17, 2023, 06:34:50 AM
No backstory on this one. It was prompted by Greg's suggestion:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=904.msg212172#msg212172

BTW: The OD version was based on a Gaëtan Marie USAAC profile.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 23, 2023, 10:07:25 AM
No backstory on this one since it is a real, unbuilt project - the German side of Panavia having set themselves the task of designing a STOL strike-fighter sometime late in the Cold War.

I'm a sucker for odd-ball mutts ... and they don't get much odder or muttier than Panavia's Schubschwenkler STOL Entwurf !
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on October 23, 2023, 03:15:45 PM
It looks more suited to extra-atmospheric operations than atmospheric flight! :-\
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 24, 2023, 02:00:48 AM
No backstory on this one. It was prompted by Greg's suggestion:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=904.msg212172#msg212172

BTW: The OD version was based on a Gaëtan Marie USAAC profile.

Thank you
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on October 24, 2023, 02:03:26 AM
No backstory on this one since it is a real, unbuilt project - the German side of Panavia having set themselves the task of designing a STOL strike-fighter sometime late in the Cold War.

I'm a sucker for odd-ball mutts ... and they don't get much odder or muttier than Panavia's Schubschwenkler STOL Entwurf !

For those unaware, it had two engines:

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/241454-ffc10468bcb54711e569b6842dff77b2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on October 25, 2023, 03:14:30 AM
For those unaware, it had two engines:

Thanks Greg. I'd lost track of my copy of that image. Nor have I found much other info on this Schubschwenkler ...

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tornado-projects.3/page-4#post-615223 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/tornado-projects.3/page-4#post-615223)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on November 26, 2023, 07:21:33 AM
PZL P.11h float-fighter - a quickie based on a suggestion by Greg:

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10919.msg213276#msg213276
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on November 26, 2023, 06:57:29 PM

nice floatplane  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on November 27, 2023, 01:20:44 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on November 27, 2023, 04:59:54 PM
Yeah, works for me - nice  one  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 03, 2023, 11:47:04 AM
Cheers 'dog. Here's another GTX-inspired PZL pair ...

Two Romanian PZL P.11F-derived projects. The IAR P.11FM was a scheme for an interim aircraft between the IAR 9K Mistral-engined P.11F and the more powerful IAR P.24E model. To that end, designs were drawn up to install the P.24E's 930 hp IAR K14-I C32 twin-row radial into a modified P.11F airframe.

The twin-row IAR K14 engine precluded the use of synchronized guns which reduced the P.11FM's armament to two rifle-calibre wing guns. Substantial rebuilding and strengthening of the P.11F's forward fuselage would also be required. In light of this, the FAR concluded that IAR's time would be better invested in speeding production of the cannon-armed P.24E.

The IAR P.11S was an Hispano Suiza 12Y-powered P.11F modification designed by Elie Carafoli. In effect, the P.11S placed existing P.11F wings and rear fuselages onto a new central fuselage section. The engine drove a 3-bladed Ratier metal propeller with a hollow boss allowing a 20 mm Oerlikon shell gun to fire through the hub. Below the HS.12Y and central fuselage sat a large radiator bath for the ethylene glycol-cooled engine.

A half-dozen P.11S pre-production conversions were created from P.11F spares for operational testing. Due to difficulties encountered by IAR in manufacturing the French engines at Brașov, most P.11S were actually fitted with Avia-built HS.12Ycrs engines imported from Czechoslovakia. The FAR's choice of main armament also proved poor - the Oerlikon FFS gun being inferior to the more powerful French HS.404. Wing guns were twin 7.9 mm FN-Brownings.

A handful of P.11S survived in to the early war years. Shown here is P.11S '​alb 57' which was flown by IAR in defence of the Brașov factory until late 1943. Although shown here fitted with its 20 mm gun, the factory defence P.11S were usually flown without their Oerlikons to reduce weight and nose-heaviness. (To address the latter problem, a proposed second run of P.11S was to have their radiators positioned further aft beneath the cockpit. However, these were never built due to IAR P.24Es dominating the lines.)

BTW: I've based these two on a P.11F profile signed "Bogdan 03". I'm thinking that may be for Bogdan Patrascu, but I'm not sure ...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Small brown dog on December 03, 2023, 05:59:14 PM
I can be a daft old bugger when it comes to creativity and my own work. I like it to be my concepts and my models but, this PLZ float job may well be the final push I need to bash out something of yours.

I have access to a pretty good PLZ model and could modify my S5 floats and it would be done.
Attached is  your Harrier image (not forgotten that masterpiece) with the MK1 Hound cowling. That and the Hound MK 4 fuselage mated together with some serious modding and Fury like crap slapped on would see that off.

With those out the way that leaves me your superb S6/Spitfire land plane mash up which, not to put too fine a point on, is as horny as hell.

With your permission I think the new year could see some stuff and I would be happy to post WIP as I go along and for your feedback as work commences ... or am I being a cheeky bugger ?

(http://tsbd.co.uk/beyondthesprue/Apophenia/Apophenea%20Harrier%20test.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 04, 2023, 12:58:37 AM
Cheers 'dog. Here's another GTX-inspired PZL pair ...


 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: raafif on December 04, 2023, 05:57:32 AM
I do like the Harrier, rather like a post-war racer  :smiley:   Still waiting for a replacement for the Pond Racer  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 04, 2023, 06:13:57 AM
... or am I being a cheeky bugger ?

The world need more cheeky buggers, 'dog  ;)

Seeing any of these profiles get the full SBD treatment would be an absolute honour! But the Harrier would be a real treat  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 10, 2023, 11:56:23 AM
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.msg213762#msg213762

Greg suggested a French Spitfire development with an HS 12Y. I'd done a similar thing with the Defiant so I decided to make it an Hispano-engined RAF Spitfire instead.

Here, I present the HS 12Y-powered [1] Supermarine Spitfire Mk.III - both the prototype Mk.I conversion and an operational model just in time for the Battle of Britain. The cannon-armed Mk.IIIs acted as 'bomber-killers', usually escorted by Mk.Ia Spitfires.

_____________________________________

[1] I remember a snippet from Flight Archives from 1935 or 1936 announcing that some new London-based consortium was seeking British licence rights to the HS 12Y. Alas, I cannot unearth my file and the online Flight Archives are long gone  :(
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 11, 2023, 12:44:28 AM
 :smiley:

I was also thinking of them in French production/service
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on December 11, 2023, 04:11:51 PM
That was my thought.

An Armée de l'Air contract, specified by the British to use French engines, so that Rolls-Royce Merlin production could be prioritised for RAF contracts.

France supplies the engines, Supermarine slaps them on the front of modified Spitfires, & over to France they go.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 13, 2023, 09:09:00 AM
... France supplies the engines, Supermarine slaps them on the front of modified Spitfires, & over to France they go.

Hmmm ... we may have this back-to-front. IIRC, it was the Armee de l'Air who were trying to source foreign supplies of HS 12Ys - like Avia-built engines. Part of the difficulty was, before building licensed HS 12Ys, foreign firms had to procure all of the part-specific tooling and machinery that Marc Birkigt had designed in to his engine. As a result, their were few foreign supplies to choose from and the AdA had no choice but to pursue alternative powerplants - those including Allison V-1710C-15 V12s, radials like the GR 14N or imported American equivalents, etc.

Meanwhile, the French government had unfounded faith in Birkigt producing a more powerful Type 89 (later HS 12Z). But that programme would drag out for a decade. Hence dire moves like the Dewoitine D.521 - plonking a Merlin into an under-armed D.520.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 13, 2023, 09:13:29 AM
These sideviews are based on a British patent application (873,236A) by Boulton Paul from 24 March 1936. Assigned to BP's chief designer, John Dudley North, this patent was published as 515,992A in September 1937. With figure keys edited out, the introduction to that patent goes as follows:

"515,992. Arrangement of guns on aircraft. BOULTON PAUL AIRCRAFT, Ltd., and NORTH J.D. March 24, 1936, No. 8732.. [Class 4] [Also in Group XXI] Guns are mounted on a member projecting a considerable distance from the aircraft body, the member being rotatable about an axis fixed relatively to the body and carrying at the end remote from the body a support for a gun or guns. Further, the gun support is rotatable on the member about an axis at right angles, the arrangement being such that the gun or guns are aimed in elevation and azimuth by a gunner situated within the aircraft body. Fig. 1 shows the mounting arranged at the tail for covering a rear hemispherical field of fire with limited forward fire clear of the fins and rudder [...]"

This patent is better known for its 'dumbell' variation to arm bombers with 4-gun tail turrets. Illustrated here is the original single-gun variant. The 'dumbell' mounted 4 x .303-in Browning guns. The single gun type is not specified. The gun itself is overscale if meant to represent a .303 weapon. Since the BP patent application 873,236A predates the RAF's 1937 adoption of the .303-in Browning as standard, it is possible that the drawing is meant to represent a larger weapon - eg: the Vickers .5-inch aircraft gun.

In the patent illustration, the BP remotely-controlled single-gun mount is shown attached to a rear fuselage and tail which vaguely resembles the forthcoming Defiant ... and so that is how I have rendered it. In reality, I have no clue what type of aircraft J. D. North actually had in mind for this armament. Nor is any mention made of whether the system was to be semi-retractable. I have made that assumption based purely on the awkwardness of landing an aircraft with such a 'stinger' without retracting the gun.

Assuming that this gun system was workable at all, I would see it as better-suited to a modest extension of a more finely tapered rear fuselage - ie: in form, more like the Gloster F.5/34 - to get around the need for such a long tubular mount to clear the empennage.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 17, 2023, 09:56:13 AM
This is a retouch I did for a thread on SPF. I'm calling Michael Gregor's second take on his fighter the Can-Car FDB-2
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on December 17, 2023, 02:56:17 PM
This is a retouch I did for a thread on SPF. I'm calling Michael Gregor's second take on his fighter the Can-Car FDB-2
It looks small!
Yep. The FDB-1 was way smaller than something like Gloster Gladiator.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on December 17, 2023, 06:02:41 PM
This is a retouch I did for a thread on SPF. I'm calling Michael Gregor's second take on his fighter the Can-Car FDB-2


HEY !!  One Wing Biplanes are MY thing . . . !!    ;D   ;D   ;D


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on December 17, 2023, 06:03:49 PM
This is a retouch I did for a thread on SPF. I'm calling Michael Gregor's second take on his fighter the Can-Car FDB-2
It looks small!
Yep. The FDB-1 was way smaller than something like Gloster Gladiator.


Looks like an early Grumman Wildcat . . .


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 18, 2023, 05:35:45 AM
perttime: Quite so. And the RW FDB-1 was truly tiny compared to the Wildcat.

Length: 6.6 m (8.76 m for F4F)
Span : 8.50 m (11.58 m for F4F)
Height: 2.858 m (3.61 m for F4F)
Empty weight: 1,306 kg (2,226 kg for F4F)
Gross weight : 1,860 kg (3,367 kg for F4F)

Not too surprisingly, the biplane had more wing area: 30.6 m2 versus 24 m2 for the F4F.

Looks like an early Grumman Wildcat . . .

Yep, there's a bit of an XF4F-3 vibe going there.

But your domination of one-wing biplanes remains unchallenged, Robin  :D

I reckoned that I was safe with one-winging the Gregor FDB-1 ... unless you are willing to sacrifice one of those bare-bones and hen's-teeth Can Vac Models vacuform kits  ;)


Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2023, 04:59:14 AM
Another one based on SPF discussions. This time, it is CCF-built Grummans for the FAA - in this case, fitted with bubble canopies.

These sideviews are based on F6F Hellcat artwork for Eduard (but I'm not sure who the original artist was).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on December 20, 2023, 05:39:33 AM
. . . willing to sacrifice one of those bare-bones and hen's-teeth Can Vac Models vacuform kits  ;)

I didn't even know such a thing existed, so I think I'll pass on that . . .   ;)


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 20, 2023, 05:48:41 AM
. . . willing to sacrifice one of those bare-bones and hen's-teeth Can Vac Models vacuform kits  ;)

I didn't even know such a thing existed, so I think I'll pass on that . . .   ;)

Oh go on ... you know you want to!  ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: kim margosein on December 21, 2023, 12:33:22 PM
I built the Can=Vac back in the day.  I just used the fuselage and canopy, and everything else out of the spares box.   The Hisso engined Spit intrigues me.  I am planning an Estonian Supermarine type 332 which was a Spitfire with somewhat different armament.   The Hisso engine would be intriguing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on December 21, 2023, 06:05:35 PM
. . . willing to sacrifice one of those bare-bones and hen's-teeth Can Vac Models vacuform kits  ;)

I didn't even know such a thing existed, so I think I'll pass on that . . .   ;)

Oh go on ... you know you want to!  ;D
Of course I want to . . . I just haven't seen one for sale anywhere . . . and probably couldn't afford it if I did . . .   ;D


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 22, 2023, 01:05:45 AM
This might be of interest:  https://dingeraviation.net/gregor/gregor.html
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 22, 2023, 09:51:19 AM
This might be of interest:  https://dingeraviation.net/gregor/gregor.html

Indeed ... in fact, that's where I stole the vacuform sheet image from  :-[

Dinger's description of his gull-wing section replacement solution is the perfect argument for a one-winged Gregor  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 24, 2023, 10:30:29 AM
I know that Xmas comes early to the Antipodes, so ...

2023 S.L.E.I.G.H. Delivery System

We might as well address this straight away. The 2023 S.L.E.I.G.H. DS is just as controversial as North Pole Enterprises (NPE) delivery systems always are. Well, at least since the bygone days of manually-controlled, reindeer-drawn sleds!

As a direct evolution of the 2021 S.L.E.I.G.H. drone, this year's model continues to rely upon electrical levitation and EMFEM weight-compensation technology created by Aero Electric Ltd. (supplied and supported through SBD Industries). [1] Held over are the carbon-fibre integrated body/frame and INS ('Icy Nose Sensor'). The rear parcel drop system has been tweaked but the forward-mounted (and longer-ranged) Vertical Pressie Launcher (VPL) deployment system has been completely redesigned (after last Season's series of embarrassments).

Some elves continue to object to the overall-grey stealth scheme. Modest red 'Candy Cane' stripes on the upper surfaces of the horizontal spoiler have done little to raise approval ratings. And the less said the better about those new, lo-viz NPE icons on the spoilers' vertical tips. Even less popular is the switch from red to 'slime green' hazard panels. Carbon fibre stealthiness may aid in keeping the Santa mystique alive for another year ... but you'll find few who will agree with that approach in the Elves' Canteen!

Image: Seen here is S.L.E.I.G.H. 07 in its natural habitat - the maintenance bay, where last minute VPL gremlins are holding up operations ... again.

Here's hoping that the S.L.E.I.G.H. delivers everything that your were hoping for! Happy Christmas folks  ;D

______________________________________________

[1] SBD (Santa's Bad Deer?) assists customers like NPE with design integration but no physical changes are made to the AEL tech.

Advanced apologies to both Small brown dog and Renault for my shameless pilferage.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 25, 2023, 02:31:18 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on December 25, 2023, 03:50:29 AM
The S.L.E.I.G.H. DS might indeed cause grumbling among the Disney and Coca Cola era elves. The colours might fit the earlier tradition Finnish Joulupukki who used more earth shade clothing.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 25, 2023, 05:04:22 AM
The S.L.E.I.G.H. DS might indeed cause grumbling among the Disney and Coca Cola era elves. The colours might fit the earlier tradition Finnish Joulupukki who used more earth shade clothing.

 ;D ;D

Traditional Finnish Joulu figures do vary a smidge from today's Coca-Cola generated imagery! Then again, Saint Nick isn't exactly known for ridding your house of evil spirits  :smiley:

The 'Yule Goat' may be a little hard to take for those raised on saccharine Santas ... but Nuuttipukki is even scarier  :o
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 29, 2023, 08:55:44 AM
I'm not sure how viable this one is? The idea might be as silly as the image looks ... rear cockpit entry/egress appearing particularly dodgy 

Anyway, when did 'silly' ever stop whiffery? The spark of the idea came from the difficulty that Westlands seemed to have in fixing on an approach to an attack helicopter derivative of the WG.13 Lynx. It occurred to me that all development work on Sikorsky's private-venture S-67 had ceased after September 1974. And, obviously, there was a strong relationship between Westland and Sikorsky.

So, what if Westlands acquired further development rights to the S-67? With the Lynx AH Mk 1 entering service by 1977, an unsolicited bid is made to the MoD for the WG.29 Tiger - a Westland-built S-67. But the British Army - and especially the Royal Marines - saw the S-67 airframe as too big to be practical. In 1978, Westland puts forward a second unsolicited bid for the WG.35 Wildcat. In this case, a hybrid airframe was proposed - effectively the nose of the Sikorsky S-67 grafted on to the Lynx fuselage.

The WG.35 was accepted for service with the British Army in late 1982 - just too late for the Falklands Conflict. As the Wildcat AH Mk 1, the WG.35's primary role was as an anti-armour platform for TOW missiles. When a 'chin' turret was introduced in 1985, the result was the Wildcat AH Mk 2.

Image: An early-model Wildcat AH Mk 1. Later upgrades - exhaust stub shrouds, E/O turrets, etc. - resulted in the Wildcat AH Mk 1A and new-build Wildcat AH Mk 3.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 30, 2023, 12:55:26 AM
 :smiley:

It is interesting to speculate what might have resulted if the Lynx was developed into something akin of the way the AH-1 Cobra was developed from the UH-1 Huey.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on December 30, 2023, 05:54:56 AM
It is interesting to speculate what might have resulted if the Lynx was developed into something akin of the way the AH-1 Cobra was developed from the UH-1 Huey.

An AH-1 style cockpit and canopy would certainly look more balanced on the Lynx airframe.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on December 31, 2023, 12:57:34 AM
You might find this of interest if you haven't already seen it:  https://www.aerosociety.com/media/15007/paper-2020-05-westland-and-the-attack-helicopters-from-lynx-to-apache.pdf (https://www.aerosociety.com/media/15007/paper-2020-05-westland-and-the-attack-helicopters-from-lynx-to-apache.pdf)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 03, 2024, 05:48:47 AM
You might find this of interest if you haven't already seen it:  https://www.aerosociety.com/media/15007/paper-2020-05-westland-and-the-attack-helicopters-from-lynx-to-apache.pdf (https://www.aerosociety.com/media/15007/paper-2020-05-westland-and-the-attack-helicopters-from-lynx-to-apache.pdf)

Very much of interest! Thanks Greg  :smiley:

One question answered was that the Lynx tailboom could indeed support a tail wheel. Much preferable to my rear pod attachment idea - aesthetically, I mean.

So, I decided to run with your Cobra canopy suggestion. Still not enough fuselage depth for a TAT-style turret but I think this looks more plausible than my Sikorsky suggestion.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 04, 2024, 01:10:55 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: robunos on January 05, 2024, 12:27:34 AM
How about with Army Lynx skids, or Navy Lynx tricycle U/C . . . ?


cheers,
Robin.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 06, 2024, 04:45:32 AM
How about with Army Lynx skids, or Navy Lynx tricycle U/C . . . ?

Skids work. I've extend them a bit for added ground clearance ... which brings up the tricycle gear.

I'm still imagining some form of turret gun as a future upgrade (as well as nose E/O turret). The latter might be mount on top of a duck-billed nose. But the former dictates a clear field of fire ... so, no nose wheels  ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 07, 2024, 01:02:00 AM
A mast mounted sign might work as well
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 11, 2024, 07:59:38 AM
Another one done in response to a SPF discussion. The full description is here:
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/replacing-the-hunter.37107/#post-646570 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/replacing-the-hunter.37107/#post-646570)

In short, the brief was to keep RAF Hunter FGA.9s in service until the late 1970s. I decided to fit the Hunter with Harrier GR.3 (RAF service entry in 1976) under the assumption that any planned replacement will be late. The second version incorporates Jaguar GR.3 sensors and features a conformal fuel tank on the belly (mainly to free-up wing pylons for ordnance).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on January 11, 2024, 10:06:49 AM
Both look really good!
If you can incorporate a more powerful engine all the better.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 13, 2024, 09:07:57 AM
I belatedly realised that Jaguar GR.3 upgrades were far too late for my Hunter scheme. So I've revised it to Harrier GR.3 systems exclusively.

As before, the upper image shows a minimal mod, the lower had the belly CFT. The latter now lacks the laser designation which probably means that the forward fairing could be detachable for gun access. [1]

As mentioned above, the ALQ-101 pod is seen mount on the outboard port pylon (Phimat would be to starboard). Just peaking out from behind the ECM pod is a Paveway II LGB. The upper view shows rocket pods on the outer pylons - I suspect that these would have still been SNEBs (likely too early ofr the CRV7s).

___________________________________

[1] Indeed, that fairing might also act as case/link collector - ie: a new-style 'Sabrina' scaled to just two guns.

... If you can incorporate a more powerful engine all the better.

Agreed ... although that wasn't part of the original brief.

There were surprisingly few British engines that would easily replace the 10,145 lbf Avon 207 turbojet. At 43 inches diameter, the RB.168-1A Spey Mk.101 was ~14.7 inches too big around to fit into a relatively unmodified Hunter rear fuselage section.

The obvious, available candidate would be the then-new TurboUnion RB.199. I'm guessing that an unreheated RB.199 (RB.199-36?) would slip right in whilst saving weight. Add to that, commonality with the coming Panavia Tornado. The downside is that the earliest RB.199s only produced  8,530-to-9,100 lbf without reheat.

There was an intriguing project - the RB.199-36 for the unbuilt HS.1189-1 and so-called A-10AMX. Some sources claimed that this engine would produce 14,230 lbf dry - a huge leap over the Tornado GR.1's engine. Alas, I suspect that RB.199-36 output was listed in error ... other sources list 4,508 kg/s which works out to a more believable ~9,940 lbf.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 28, 2024, 06:06:06 AM
Carlos putting a Thomson-CSF Agave radar set on a G.91Y got me wondering how 'Gina' would look with side intakes. The answer turned out to be pretty damned ugly! Oh, well ...

The idea was that. without the G.91's usual chin intake, there'd be a greater nose area available for a decent sized radar (and/or other targeting gubbins). [1] For Luftwaffe 'Ginas' (and later Portuguese), that also meant lowering the 30 mm DEFA gun.

Worthwhile? I highly doubt it ... but it was fun moving the bits around.

BTW: I believe that Carlos started off with the radome from the naval Super Étendard. I used the radome from the land-based Indian Jaguar IM. The original 'Gina' Portuguesa profile for my 'mod' came from ACIG.org.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 29, 2024, 12:29:18 AM
Has a bit of an AMX or AIDC AT-3 look to it.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: perttime on January 29, 2024, 02:26:46 AM
What if you made forward fuselage more like the AMX, with a pretty straight belly line? Could that work?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on January 30, 2024, 12:37:10 PM
What if you made forward fuselage more like the AMX, with a pretty straight belly line? Could that work?

I think that would work. I suspect, with all this reworking, it would be simpler (and more aerodynamic) to re-do the entire forward fuselage. The cockpit could be moved forward and lowered (to reduce drag) giving you that "straight belly line". Then again, might be better to just design an AMX?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 03, 2024, 05:35:52 AM
Having come across a high-winged Gina in the form of an early iteration of the G.95, I'm wondering if that mightn't be a route to an ur-AMX?

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1881.msg215518#msg215518
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 04, 2024, 11:42:58 AM
The Fiat G.91 STOL project evolved into the V/TOL G.95 to meet NATO NBMR.3 attack-fighter requirement. However, recognizing the emerging complexity, Giuseppe Gabrielli's team persisted with further development of the G.91-based airframe as a lower-cost CTOL aircraft - primarily with an eye on potential export markets. Two separate schemes emerged - the low-winged G.92 and the high-winged G.94.

The G.92 concept was a 'least-mod' evolution of the original G.91 'Gina'. The swept wings were given a broader chord inboard to increase flap area and effectiveness. Power was to come from uprated Orpheus turbojet - either a 5,760 lbf Bristol Siddeley BOr.11 Orpheus 810 or 6,810 lbf Fiat (BOr.12F) Orpheus 812 engine. [1] The resulting G.92 would provide a modest flight performance increase but was retained over 75% commonality with the G.91. Potential customers viewed the G.92 as little more than a warmed-over G.91.

'Giorgia' - the Fiat G.94

The G.94 was a much more radical re-design of the G.91 airframe. Most dramatically, the wings were moved up to a shoulder position and the main undercarriage redesigned. Having those Messier-Bugatti-Dowty main legs mounted on the fuselage freed-up wing space for additional pylons. The 6,810 lbf Fiat Orpheus 812 was now standard but consideration was being given to even larger engines. However, the prototype G.94s would retain maximum commonality with the production G.91 to reduce expeditures and development risks.

The two prototype G.94s employed standard G.91 wings and rear fuselages. Power was provided by the G.91's standard Fiat 4023 turbojet - the licensed Orpheus Mk.803. Flight testing revealed some issues but these were not entirely unexpected. The prototypes were considered underpowered but, their biggest problem was elevator 'buzz' caused by interference from the higher-mounted wings. It was intended that this would be addressed in production aircraft through the substitution of horizontal tailplanes with considerable anhedral. This did not occur as Fiat Aviazione chose to address the power issue first.

In the design process, the G.94/4 concept replaced the G.91's Orpheus turbojet with a new turbofan engine. The leading candidate engine was the BE53/ST 'Straight-Through Pegasus' which used the Orpheus core. Although this 15,000 lbf turbofan represented considerable development risk, planning proceded as far as a mockup of the Fiat/Alfa Romeo Avio Epona 301 variant. This concept made sense since Fiat had experience with the Orpheus core. However, British Aircraft Corporation - parent of Bristol Siddeley - had also recently joined forces with Breguet to develop a rival attack aircraft to the G.94.

Having BAC as a potential rival for the G.94 did not eliminate the BE53/ST from consideration. Instead, it was the overall smaller size of an engine pitched by Rolls-Royce - the existing Spey 200-series turbofan. The Spey 200 was heavier and rather less powerful than the BE53/ST but it also had a smaller diameter. The latter proved to be the winning point. Adopting the Rolls-Royce Spey to a G.91-based airframe required a complete redesign of the rear fuselage. At its compressor section, the turbofan engine was more than 10-inches larger in diameter than an Orpheus. [2] Since the tailplane would also need to be greatly enlarged, it was decided to dispense with the G.91 rear fuselage structures altogether.

There was no prototype for the Spey-engined G.94. But, as the first pre-production aircraft took shape at Torino, it would reveal a new, barrel-like rear fuselage surmounted by an enomous tailfin and rudder. New, all-flying horizontal tails flanking the tailpipe were well out of the wake of the high-mounted wings. As compared with the G.94 prototypes, a great deal of equipment re-arrangement was also necessary to balance the weight of that new engine. That pattern was now set for the production-series Fiat G.94 and its British equivalent, the Hawker Siddeley Group's HS.1194 Hotspur ... but that is another story. [3]

Top: Second prototype Fiat G.94/02 as assigned to the AMI's Centro Sperimentale Volo at Pratica di Mare. This trials machine was later fully-marked as RS+02. On the fin, the Fiat logos were replaced by crests for the 311º Gruppo Volo (the flight-test component of the Reparto Sperimentale Volo).

Bottom: A Fiat G.94 serie 0 pre-production aircraft on loan from the AMI's Centro Sperimentale Volo to the 5ª Aerobrigata for squadron trials. This aircraft has now been fitted with wing-tip missiles rails, making it externally indistinguishable from serie 1 production 'Giorgias'.

_____________________________________

[1] As far back as 1959, the BOr.12 Orpheus had been proposed to power the G.93 project - a more powerful evolution of the G.91S.

[2] The rival Pegasus was a full 15.6-inches larger in diameter. Heavier than the Pegasus, the new Spey engine also weighed an astounding 4.90 times that of the little turbojet.

[3] Initially, the Sepecat Jaguar was favoured for the light strike requirement in AST.362. However, HS had doubts about the add-on trainer requirement based on their experience in designing the 2-seat HS.1173. The Fiat-penned HS.1194 was hedging Hawker Siddeley's bets with a lower-cost dedicated strike aircraft. When the 2-seat trainer variant was eliminated from AST.362, the inevitable winner was the HS Hotspur GR.1.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 05, 2024, 12:46:10 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 08, 2024, 10:57:10 AM
I mounted what few details there are on the RW G.291 project in the Ideas & Inspiration/Aero-space section:
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1881.msg215704#msg215704 (https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=1881.msg215704#msg215704)

The G.291 'Super Gina'

Proposed improvements to the G.91 strike aircraft continued under Prof. Giuseppe Gabrielli under the Studio 3-1x programme. This was a series of studies based on developments of the G.91Y. One such study was designated as the G.91E, another as the G.91Y-2. The Studio 3-1x programme matured as the G.291 but none of these concepts were realised ... but that is what whif is for!

Here, I present an Aeritalia/Dornier G.291 'Super Gina'. [1] This is an ex-Luftwaffe G.291R/3 ground attack/recce aircraft transferred to the Força Aérea Portuguesa. The first of these aircraft arrived in 1990 at the Base Aérea do Montijo (BA6) to replace the G.91s of Esquadra 301 'Jaguares'. [2]

The aircraft shown (6442) wears a later wrap-around camouflage scheme distinct to the FAP. Standard built-in armament is twin 30 mm DEFA cannons. Underwing stores are 260 litre drop tanks and pods for 68 mm Matra SNEB ground rockets rockets. Note that this aircraft (top) is shown carrying the old, expendable Matra Type 155 SNEB pods (the reusable Matra Type 155 SNEB pods were more common). FAP 'Super Ginas' sometimes flew escort for other G.291s. In such cases AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles were carried on the outboard pylons.

____________________________________________

[1] The Gabrielli team's work on the Fiat G.291 had been overtaken by the merger of Fiat Aviazione with Aerfer to form Aeritalia in 1969.

[2] Only the G.91R/3 fleet was replaced by G.291s. As there was no 2-seat version of the G.291, the G.91T/3 trainers soldiered on until 1996 when they were finally replaced by Dornier Alpha Jet As.

For what little more there is on the Fiat G.291 project, see:
-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fiat-aviazione-projects.31824/#post-351944 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fiat-aviazione-projects.31824/#post-351944)

What little can be gleaned is that the wing trailing edge was kinked - looking less like a Sabre and more like an F-100. Supposedly there was be two more wing pylons. I haven't shown these because I don't know what their arrangement was meant to be (although I suspect a set of missile pylons further outboard).

The 'Gina'  fuselage was said to be the same (but appears to be lengthened in the wind tunnel model photo). The tailcone looks less scalloped but, alas, I have no idea which engine type(s) was being considered for the G.291.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 09, 2024, 01:53:02 AM
Supposedly there was be two more wing pylons. I haven't shown these because I don't know what their arrangement was meant to be (although I suspect a set of missile pylons further outboard).

Something to keep in mind regarding stores pylons/bomb rack placement under the wings with aircraft designs of that era is that many of these aircraft were fitted with zero-length rocket launcher units that were easily attached or removed (a couple of bolts for example) or were built into the aircraft structure in the form of a drop down to hang the HVAR/FFAR rocket store and when fired, the attachment point would then flip up into a recessed feature on the wing surface leaving a smooth surface for clean airflow.  While the attachment and carriage of larger free-fall stores such as bombs, flares, incendiary bombs, etc. required a more substantial stores pylon with a release mechanism these would attach to a designated point on the wing or fuselage structure that was designed for the additional weight and stress. 

My own attempts at a Sabre with six under the wing stores hard points resulted in a small success after I determined the new outboard wing stores station would be equi-distant from the other two stores stations which provided an easy method of where to place it.  End result was in that "Goldilocks Zone" where it was just right and did not interfere with any of the flight controls.  The stores pylon that I used for this purpose was the same as the other two already provided in the kit thanks to my having many more Monogram Sabre kits than I would ever build. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 11, 2024, 10:28:21 AM
Something to keep in mind regarding stores pylons/bomb rack placement under the wings with aircraft designs of that era is that many of these aircraft were fitted with zero-length rocket launcher units ...

Cheers Jeff ... I hadn't thought of ZLLs.

In lieu of any sign of wing rails, I mentioned short pylons for AIM-9Ls or similar. Considering the intended role, probably more likely that the G.291 featured further outboard pylons for additional SNEB pods.

That said, for any rockets bigger than 68-70 mm, your zero-length launchers make a whole bunch of sense  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: M.A.D on February 11, 2024, 02:40:48 PM
Something to keep in mind regarding stores pylons/bomb rack placement under the wings with aircraft designs of that era is that many of these aircraft were fitted with zero-length rocket launcher units ...

In lieu of any sign of wing rails, I mentioned short pylons for AIM-9Ls or similar. Considering the intended role, probably more likely that the G.291 featured further outboard pylons for additional SNEB pods.

Lovely profiles!!

Yes, if anything, I would think that one Aim-9 Sidewinder for self-defence would be a good balance and not detracting from it's intended role apophenia.

MAD
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 12, 2024, 01:50:36 AM
Something to keep in mind regarding stores pylons/bomb rack placement under the wings with aircraft designs of that era is that many of these aircraft were fitted with zero-length rocket launcher units ...
In lieu of any sign of wing rails, I mentioned short pylons for AIM-9Ls or similar. Considering the intended role, probably more likely that the G.291 featured further outboard pylons for additional SNEB pods.
Lovely profiles!!

Yes, if anything, I would think that one Aim-9 Sidewinder for self-defence would be a good balance and not detracting from it's intended role apophenia.

MAD
I did do a fit-check of the AIM-9 Sidewinder launch rail/pylon on the new locations on my Monogram F-86 Sabre and there were no fit issues when placed in the new outboard stores pylon locations so it would appear to be a matter of choice in having an additional pair of Sidewinders at these new outboard locations or a pair of stores pylons for free-fall bombs or rocket pods.  Granted the weight capacity would be much less than those inboard stations but it still looks good and practical/convincing to the casual observer. 

If I had the kits to resource I would love to have that "Y-Shaped" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 Super Sabre.  Mounting that on the inboard stores station to replace the single Sidewinder pylon would give the F-86 Sabre a much needed upgrade in capability.  So far the only source for the twin Sidewinder launcher in 1/48th scale if from the rather expensive Trumpeter F-100 Super Sabre kits.   :icon_nif:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2024, 07:39:28 AM
I did do a fit-check of the AIM-9 Sidewinder launch rail/pylon on the new locations on my Monogram F-86 Sabre and there were no fit issues when placed in the new outboard stores pylon locations so it would appear to be a matter of choice in having an additional pair of Sidewinders at these new outboard locations or a pair of stores pylons for free-fall bombs or rocket pods.  Granted the weight capacity would be much less than those inboard stations but it still looks good and practical/convincing to the casual observer. 

Going back a generation, you did see G.91s carrying 250 lb dumb-bombs on their outboard pylons. Granted the third G.291 pylon is still further outboard but, if it could carry a Sidewinder (190 lbs + rail) a 250 wouldn't be that big of an issue.

If I had the kits to resource I would love to have that "Y-Shaped" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 Super Sabre.  Mounting that on the inboard stores station to replace the single Sidewinder pylon would give the F-86 Sabre a much needed upgrade in capability.  So far the only source for the twin Sidewinder launcher in 1/48th scale if from the rather expensive Trumpeter F-100 Super Sabre kits.   :icon_nif:

On your Y-shaped pylon conundrum, here's an off-the-wall possibility. Wrong period/continent but, I note, that the Tamiya Tornado F3 comes with those mid-'90s drop-tank/rails combo pylon. Could that set be pruned of its drop-tank attachment to leave just the Y-shaped mounts for the LAU-7s?
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2024, 07:44:02 AM
Lovely profiles!!

Yes, if anything, I would think that one Aim-9 Sidewinder for self-defence would be a good balance and not detracting from it's intended role apophenia.

MAD

Cheers M.A.D  :D

I think you are right about the AIM-9 on the G.291. It occurs to me that mixing the load-out on formations might also have been a good idea. Maybe (in a two pairs formation) three G.291s with full ground-attack ordnance and one 'cover' aircraft carrying 'winders outboard?

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 12, 2024, 07:46:38 AM
On your Y-shaped pylon conundrum, here's an off-the-wall possibility. Wrong period/continent but, I note, that the Tamiya Tornado F3 comes with those mid-'90s drop-tank/rails combo pylon. Could that set be pruned of its drop-tank attachment to leave just the Y-shaped mounts for the LAU-7s?

Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale.  The "Y-Shape" twin Sidewinder launcher pylon from the F-100 has a very unique shape to it and is I believe a solid construction unit.  Not that it really matters, I suspect in time I may be able to find the parts through networking by trading or purchase of the items in question. 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 12, 2024, 11:46:36 AM
Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale...

Yep. Sorry Jeff ... got my scale wires crossed  :-[
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 12, 2024, 12:03:09 PM
Tamiya Tornado F.3?  I require bits and pieces in 1/48th scale...
Yep. Sorry Jeff ... got my scale wires crossed  :-[
It's all good.  I wonder if the HobbyBoss, Revell or Italeri Tornado kits might have these bits.  Will have to do some research at ScaleMates to see what the kits contain.   a s

***edit to elaborate.  Just checked via ScaleMates and it would appear that the pylons in question will not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon.  Worth the time spent to check though. -- jjf
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 13, 2024, 07:01:26 AM
...  not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon...

I notice a twin-rail launcher on Danish F-100s but, at a  glance, they seem to be flat-bottomed - ie: an inverted 'T' rather than a 'Y'. I'm assuming that those are a different (later?) type from your desired inverted 'Y'.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Kerick on February 13, 2024, 10:42:20 AM
I could use a sprue of just Sidewinder and Maverick launchers.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 13, 2024, 11:17:52 AM
I could use a sprue of just Sidewinder and Maverick launchers.
Scale? 
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Jeffry Fontaine on February 13, 2024, 11:25:54 AM
...  not be suitable for conversion to the desired inverted "Y-Shape" of the F-100 Super Sabre Sidewinder twin launcher pylon...
I notice a twin-rail launcher on Danish F-100s but, at a  glance, they seem to be flat-bottomed - ie: an inverted 'T' rather than a 'Y'. I'm assuming that those are a different (later?) type from your desired inverted 'Y'.
More than likely it is the same launcher adapter unit/pylon for the RDAF F-100.  The real Sidewinder launcher/pylon is a very shallow "Y-Shape," very hard to discern from a "T-Shape" at a distance because it is so shallow.  It is designed to align the Sidewinders so the control surfaces are vertical and horizontal (+ shape) to the line of flight instead of the usual "X" shape that most other aircraft utilize for carriage of the Sidewinder.  Mirage III being another example of the offset to carry the Sidewinder in the "+" arrangement.   
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 18, 2024, 06:54:41 AM
The Canadian Ram cruiser tank was a very ambitious project for a sprawling nation with a population of only 11.5 million people. However, the major components were imported from the United States. The lower hulls and running gear were based directly on the American M3 medium tank. As a result, Continental R-975 engines came in from Detroit while gearboxes came originated with Iowa Transmission Co. of Waterloo, Iowa. These were in short supply - due to the scaling-up of M3 production - but the Canadian Tank Arsenal (CTA) in Montreal received regular deliveries. Large armour castings imported from the US were another matter.

The Ram's upper hull casting was well beyond the means of CTA managers, Montreal Locomotive Works. Instead, these massive casting were done in the Commonwealth plant of General Steel Castings in Granite City, Illinois. Delays in perfecting and delivering these hull castings threatened the entire Ram programme. As an interim, it was decided to develop an easier-to-assemble Ram variant. Like the lower hulls created in Montreal, this interim Ram would have a bolted and riveted upper hull - very much like that of the US M3. It took rather longer to sort out the nature of this interim cruiser tank's turret type.

'Interim Ram'

For the first model of this 'Interim Ram' (M3.IR), it was proposed to use the American upper turret from the M3 Lee tank. This would be armed with the same American 37 mm M3 L/56.6 gun as the M3 but lack the uppermost machine turret (which had proved unpopular with British crews). This proposed arrangement, it was thought, would be the quickest method to getting Ram cruisers to the frontlines. Alas, this proposal was immediately rejected by the Royal Tank Regiment which felt that such a vehicle offered little advantage over its existing, UK-made cruiser tanks. However, the RTR was somewhat more interested in the second proposed arrangement for the 'Interim Ram'.

CTA's back-up scheme was an 'Interim Ram' fitted with the originally planned turret for the cast-hulled Rams. These cast turrets would also be imported from the US but were less difficult castings to create than the upper hulls. Of interest to the RTR was the use of its preferred internal mantlet to hold a 6-pounder main gun. Despite crew trepidations about the bolted and riveted armour plate of M3s, this approach was considered acceptable while waiting for 'full production' Ram cruisers with cast hull armour. As a result, a British order was placed for the M3.IR 'Interim Ram' cruiser tank as the Ram Mk.X. These would be delivered with no main guns - the new 6-pounders to be fitted in Britain.

Ram Mk.X in North Africa

From the outset, the Ram Mk.X had been intended for use in the Western Desert and provision had been made for extensive turret cooling fans. The first Ram Mk.X cruisers saw action in North Africa late in the Battle of Gazala in June 1942. Like the American M3s, the Ram Mk.X received a British code name - 'Guide' (perhaps as a match to 'Pilot' for the M3. The Canadian tanks acquitted themselves well against Panzer IIIs during the fighting west of Tobruk. However, the follow-on Ram Mk.XA armed with the longer, American 6-pounder - the 57mm M1 with an L/50 barrel - was eagerly awaited. These long-barrelled Rams reached the front in September 1942 but, within a month, the Ram was being eclipsed by a new American medium tank - the M4 Sherman armed with a 75 mm turret gun.

The Ram cruiser received no further British orders. After some hulls were completed as 2-pounder armed Ram Mk.XI training tanks for the Canadian Army, the Canadian Tank Arsenal shifted production to 25-pdr self-propelled guns.

Image Shown is a long-barrelled Ram Mk.XA in North Africa. Note that these cruiser tanks were delivered without sand shields (although these were often fitted in the field.

The scrap views show the rejected American 37 mm M3 turret (top) and the short-barrelled Ram Mk.X (bottom).
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 22, 2024, 08:38:06 AM
Inspired by Frank3k's comment on The Spanish Civil War, rethought thread.
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10987.msg215949#msg215949
_________________________________________________________

The first 20 ex-US Army Air Corps Martin B-10s arrived at the port of Sagunto in València during January of 1937. Being 20 miles from the Aeroport de València, remote Sagunto wasn't ideal. However, it took pressure off of the overcrowded Porto de València and minimized the odds of crated machines being caught in the open during a Nationalist air raid. The crates were then shipped to El Racó for re-assembly and test-flying from the Aeroport de València. [1]

In Aviación repúblican service, the B-10 was dubbed the 'Martinete' - meaning 'drop hammer' or 'pile driver'. [2] To the fascistas, the Martins were simply 'Martíns' or, for propaganda purposes, 'Mártires' ('Martyrs'). With a maximum speed over 210 mph, the Martin could easily outpace He 51B biplane fighters of the Legión Cóndor while only an unfortunately-placed Fiat C.R.32 had any real chance of interception. [3]

Top: A newly-delivered Martin B-10B operating from the Aeroport de Castelló in the Summer of 1937. The camouflage green and grey had applied over a USAAC scheme prior to delivery. American preparers had also positioned Republican roundels above and below the wings - although this practice was actually quite rare in the AR.

Already, blanc dos has taken on some personal markings. The fuselage band has a yellow stripe added, suggesting a Catalan crew - red and gold being the colours of the Senyera (the Catalonian flag). Below the rear cockpit, a CNT poster has also been doped into place.

Bottom: A well-worn 'Martinete' with overpainted camouflage to better-suit the terrain of the Meseta Central. By early-1938, the Martin was losing its edge over opposing fighters. To better-defend itself, blanco cuatro has been stripped of its rear cockpit canopies and armed with twinned Brownings.

On the fuselage band, the slogan '¡No pasarán!' has been added (along with signatures of the crew). Perhaps the latter gesture was meant as a pledge? Regardless, blanco cuatro succumbed to Italian AA fire while on a mission over Mérida. By this stage, the surviving Martins were being replaced by Soviet Tupolev SBs - which were some 65 mph faster than the 'Martinete'.
_________________________________________________________

[1] At the time, the Valènciano word aeroport was prefered to the Spanish aeropuerto.

[2] As it happens, martinete is also a flamenco singing style and the name of a Cuban heron species.

[3] The Heinkel He 51B's top speed was only 210 mph, the Fiat C.R.32's was 220 mph. The latter were mainly flown by the Italian-manned Aviazione Legionaria but Spanish Aviación Nacional pilots eventually flew both types.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on February 22, 2024, 10:30:41 AM
Wow - nice work on both! Off to find a suitable B-10...
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 22, 2024, 04:58:54 PM
 :-* :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 22, 2024, 09:14:22 PM
The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.




[*: Low/mid-mounted wings, not good for an amphibious aircraft.]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 23, 2024, 06:50:46 AM
Thanks folks!

The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me...

At first, I thought you were body-shaming pot-bellied salamanders  :icon_surprised:

I couldn't resist ... here is a Glenn Martin 139WV (Watervliegtuig) - a ML-KNIL landplane conversion on loan to bolster local MLD strength. The 139WVs were modified to accept the twin float gear from retired Fokker T.IVa patrol bombers. This aircraft operated from Marinevliegkamp Morokrembangan at Soerabaja, Java. MLD M529 was downed by Japanese fighters over the Java Sea on 02 March 1942.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 23, 2024, 10:17:25 AM
The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.


You were saying…

(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/FT/FT1935/09/335-2.jpg)
(http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-1/46-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: ericr on February 23, 2024, 03:24:44 PM
 ;) long live floatplanes / seaplanes
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on February 23, 2024, 08:04:09 PM
The B-10 always looks like a failed amphibian*, to me.


You were saying…

([url]http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/HI/HI-1/46-2.jpg[/url])


Right! So, take away the big floats, fit smaller floats at/near the wing-tips, then raise the wing to the shoulder or go parasol (as per the Catalinas) ...

... & NOW the "pot-bellied salamander" looks like a proper amphibian. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 24, 2024, 05:23:16 AM
You were saying…

Just when you think it is safe to use your imagination, reality hoves into view! Is it still whiffery if some clever bastard actually did it almost 90 years ago?  ???
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 25, 2024, 01:53:23 AM
Maybe someone took the idea and your profile and then jumped in a time machine/sent the image back in the past to create it for real...just to mess with you. ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 26, 2024, 11:07:05 AM
Maybe someone took the idea and your profile and then jumped in a time machine/sent the image back in the past to create it for real...just to mess with you. ;)

That's just plain unfair. They had access to a time machine and Edo floats  :icon_punal:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 26, 2024, 11:08:31 AM
More alternative Spanish Civil War stuff ...
_____________________________________________

The Vickers 6-ton light tank was never adopted by the British Army but it proved a very successful export type. In 1933, the US Army's Rock Island Arsenal designed a new light tank prototype - designated T2 - which used the simple leaf-spring suspension system from the Vickers 6-ton. However, the US Army was unsatisfied with this suspension's cross-country performance and speed limitations. Accordingly, in 1935, Rock Island produced a follow-on light tank prototype - the T2E1 which incorporated a superior Vertical Volute Spring System (VVSS) suspension. The T2E1 would be refined into the production-model M1 Combat Cars and M2 Light Tanks.

Beginning in January 1937, the US, Britain, and France began co-operating on armoured vehicle development with the aim of reducing redundancies while also speeding deliveries to Republican Spain. France assumed that its cast-armoured Char légers - the Renault R35 and Hotchkiss H35 - would become the basis for standard model western light tanks. However, American and British assessment teams would judge these well-protected infantry tanks to be heavy and slow (as well as difficult to steer off-road, in the case of the R35). This led to a breakdown in negotiations to produce a common allied light tank. However, the US and British armies agreed to continue exchanging technical details on new armoured vehicle developments.

On the American side, the key benefit came from extensive firing trials with the British 47 mm tank gun - the Ordnance QF 3-pounder. The timing worked out well. Observing operation tank use in the Spanish Civil War had shown that America's currently-planned machine gun-armed light tanks would be inadequate in combat. The war in Spain was also revealing the limitations of the 250 surplus M1917 tanks supplied, including those with short-barrelled 37 mm M1916 cannons. In January 1937, the Ordnance Committee had acquired two modern German anti-tank guns - PaK 36s - which were meant to form the basis for future T3A1 tank guns. Instead, trials with the dual-purpose British 3-pounder resulted in the Watervliet Arsenal producing its 47 mm gun M4 for the US Army.

On the British side, the information exchange bore fruit when Vickers redesigned in Mark E 6-ton light tank to take a VVSS suspension based on the Rock Island Arsenal's T2E1 design. By contract, Vickers agreed to refrain from exporting this new Mark G 7-ton [1] light tank - accept for use by Republican Spain. In Spain, the new tank was, invariably, known as the 'Siete Toneladas' or '7-ton'. Initially, both infantry and 'cruiser' variants were planned but all production '7-tons' were dual-purpose types armed with the Ordnance QF 3-pounder gun.

Right A Vickers 'Siete Toneladas' tank in Spain. This '7-ton' run out of fuel while on the Ávila? front. Abandoned by its Republican crew, all attempts to set the tank alight failed. Captured, the vehicle is shown with its turret painted over in the colours of the Nationalist flag.

Compared with the 6-ton, the 'Siete Toneladas' had rather more power. While the 6-ton had an 90 hp Armstrong Siddeley Puma 4-cylinder, the 7-ton featured a 150 hp Wolseley Viper V8 engine.

Old School - the 6-Ton Lives on

Due to its agreement not to export VVSS suspensions, Vickers also continued to employ its original leaf-spring suspensions from the 6-ton tank. Other than for exports, this suspension type was also incorporated into a line of artillery vehicles for the British Army. Confusingly, the Royal Armoured Corps' Dragon Mark I artillery tractor was known by Vickers as its Medium Dragon Mark IV. In Spanish Republican service, a similar type was dubbed el Dragón TA (Tractor de Artillería). The Dragón TAF of 1938 was uprated with an 85 bhp Ford Dagenham-built 'sidevalve' V8 engine.

Derived from the Tractors de Artillería were the revised Autopropulsados - akin to the earlier Birch Guns. These self-propelled guns had enlarged, open-topped fighting compartments which extended rearward over the engine. In the centre was mounted an artillery piece. Above the engine compartment was a rack for stored ammunition (with ready-rounds carried next to the gun).  The main Dragón AP variant was, officially, the 84 mm Obús Autopropulsado - despite the Ordnance QF 18 pounder actually being a field gun rather than a howitzer.

Left: A newly-delivered Dragón AP variant armed with a 76 mm Ordnance QF 13-pounder gun. These former horse artillery pieces were donated in some numbers - including from the Canadian and Australian armies. The rarer 13-pdr Dragón APs were supplied exclusively to the Galacian front where their slightly lower combat weight was appreciated for mobility over rougher terrain.

______________________________

[1] Vickers designations were rather obtuse. Mk.E covered a large family of evolving vehicles. Other than basic design, what unified Vickers-built Mk.Es was their Armstrong-Siddeley engines. The one-off Mk.F prototype tried a 125 hp Rolls-Royce Phantom II 6-cylinder but no orders were received. As noted, the Mk.G switch to a British-built Ford flathead V8 engine.

Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: GTX_Admin on February 27, 2024, 02:04:28 AM
 :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Frank3k on February 27, 2024, 06:55:30 AM
The Vickers 6/7 ton with the VVSS suspension  is messing with my mind. I think I have enough parts to build it (using a 7TP/T-26 Mirage kit)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on February 27, 2024, 12:44:42 PM
... is messing with my mind...

My definition of a successful whif  ;D


... I think I have enough parts to build it (using a 7TP/T-26 Mirage kit)

Oooo, that would be really cool Frank  :smiley:
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 13, 2024, 04:00:58 AM
Returning to that Alt-Spanish Civil War theme.

Previously ...
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=10987.msg215927
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg215980#msg215980
-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg216113#msg216113

_____________________________________________

Renault Resurrection - the Modernized M1917A3 Light Tank

The US Army's M1917A3 program was an attempt to revive worn-out M1917 light tanks. Applied only to 'non-runners', this involved a complete rebuild of the drivetrain. In many cases, M1917A3 candidate hulls had been stripped of many usable components in the past to maintain the active M1917 fleet. These 'carcass' hulls were rebuilt with extended rear hulls to accommodate a new, rear-mounted transmission and final drive system.

The engine was the same 83 hp Ford V8 as had been used in the Light Tank T3 - but reversed in orientation. Within the extended rear hull section was a REO Self-Shifter semi-automatic transmission which replaced the M1917's obsolete chain-drive system. This rather complex drivetrain arrangement was arrived at because there was thought to be insufficient space within the driver's compartment to accommodate a driveshaft.

The suspension system was also completely changed. Initially, the replacement was to be a Vickers leaf-spring suspension - but this went no further than the first prototype conversion. When Rock Island Arsenal's Light Tank T2 design was abandoned, so too was this M1917E2 prototype. Instead, the Vertical Volute Spring System (VVSS) suspension from the follow-on Light Tank T3 was adopted. The result was a 'new' light tank with a vastly superior cross-country performance compared with the original, Renault-designed M1917. It was also much faster - while the M1917 was hard-pressed to exceed 5 mph, the rebuilt M1917A3 was capable of over 15 mph.

In the end, it was concluded that too much work and expense went into producing M1917A3 conversions for use in Spain. The dozen hulls begun were completed and shipped to València for operational employment but that brought this conversion program to an end. The deployed M1917A3s - know locally as los nuevos Renault - accompanied shock troops, using their unexpectedly high speed to achieve breakthroughs. The tactic was effective but costly. Between losses in combat and lack of spares for the type, no M1917A3s are know to have served beyond the end of 1938.

Left: The sole prototype M1917E2 fitted with Vickers leaf-spring suspensions.

Right: A newly-deployed M1917A3 (with VVSS suspension) on the Andalucían front, Summer 1938. Note that this vehicle has had its original .30-inch Marlin M1917 machine gun replaced by a local (Oviedo-made) Ametralladora sistema Hotchkiss, modelo 1914. Substituting these 7x57 mm chambered Hotchiss guns greatly simplified ammunition supply.
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 13, 2024, 04:23:37 PM
Are you sure it's not "leaf-spring" suspension? ???

 ;)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 14, 2024, 04:13:57 AM
Are you sure it's not "leaf-spring" suspension? ???

Thanks for the proofing, Guy   :-[

A 'leave-spring' suspension would just be messy and wasteful. (Who is supposed to collect all those left springs from the battlefield?)
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: Old Wombat on March 14, 2024, 04:22:42 PM
Oh, I wasn't proof-reading; it's just that that one leapt out & poked me in the eye*.




[*: Probably one of those springs departing the suspension at high velocity. ;D ]
Title: Re: Apophenia's Offerings
Post by: apophenia on March 19, 2024, 11:11:38 AM
Playing with BAe Hawks in  the Stories section: The Retiring of Canada's CT-155 Hawk Jet Trainers

-- https://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=11023.msg216899