Author Topic: DG's Profiles  (Read 9128 times)

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
DG's Profiles
« on: May 25, 2012, 03:28:29 PM »
Handley Page HP.55





The HP.55 was Handley Page's submission for the B.1/35 requirement for a twin-engined heavy bomber able to reach speeds to 230mph while carrying a heavier bombload than the B.3/34. The competition was won by the Vickers 284, an enlarged Wellington derivative which ultimately became the Warwick, but the Handley Page design was regarded favourably and was one of three prototypes commissioned on 7th October 1935 (alongside the Armstrong Whitworth AW.39 development of the Whitley and the Vickers Warwick). The HP.55 could be powered by either the Hercules or the Merlin, had a wingspan of 95 feet, and was expected to have a top speed of 251mph. However the contracts for both AW.39 and HP.55 were cancelled in June 1937. Armstrong Whitworth felt they had taken on too much work to be able to tender to the new B.12/36 heavy bomber requirement, while Handley Page's attention had drifted to the P.13/36 medium bomber and they wished to redesign the HP.55 to meet the new requirement (which they ultimately did as first the twin-engined HP.56, and then the four engined HP.57 Halifax).

By contrast with the manufacturers, the Air Ministry did not want to cancel the B.1/35 contracts and turned down the initial request. Although they finally gave in to their contractors, the HP.55 could easily have flown. If it had been adopted, then it would undoubtedly have taken the name of a town starting with H. The development history of the Warwick gives us a likely pattern for the HP.55. The prototypes were originally due to fly in 1937, but in 1936 the Air Ministry increased the required fuel and bombload, then in 1937 started to move away from the Hercules and towards the Vulture and the Sabre which promised higher performance, finally settling on the Vulture in late 1938. The first prototype Warwick eventually flew with Vultures in August 1939, the second with Bristol Centaurus, following in April 1940. At one point in 1939 it was proposed to abandon any plan for production, but eventually orders were placed for 250 in December 1940, though the failure of the Vulture and scarcity of the Centaurus meant that they would have to use the inferior Double Wasp. An HP.55 that followed the Warwick's development path would likely have failed for identical reasons, but if it had been delivered as originally intended in 1937, then there might have been a brief opening for it as a partial replacement for the Wellington before the later four-engined heavies came on line.

The aircraft is shown in the colours of Q-Queenie of No. 446 Squadron, RAAF, with Bomber Command's No. 4 Group at Driffield in 1944-5, based on the profile here, and is based on the HP.55 illustration in BSP:3.

(I put these up as an attachment to the Handley Page HP.52 Hampden Ideas and Inspiration thread a couple of weeks ago, but I've now got somewhere to put them online that allows them to be shown properly in a posting here. Main lesson learnt from this piece is that I probably need to be working at a larger scale, and using something more capable than MS Paint ;) )

Offline Maverick

  • Suffers from 'Fat Fingers' and accidentally locks his own thread...
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • The profile machine!
    • My Photobucket Thread
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2012, 05:26:18 PM »
Nice stuff there.  I agree with the idea of using larger originals.  I routinely go beyond 2-3000 pixels wide myself and rarely look at less that 1000.  As for MS Paint, I use E-Paint which is broadly similar and find it more than adequate for the task.

Regards,

John
Regards,

John

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2012, 06:15:06 PM »
Thanks, I've downloaded E-paint and I'll take a look at it when I get a chance.

Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2012, 08:25:43 PM »
Nice!  :)

As an aside, I was planning on building something of a prelude to this using a Heinkel He-115. The planforms are quite similar (though of course it would be a smaller aircraft).

As for H names, what about Harwich, Harpenden, Harlow or Honiton.


Offline Litvyak

  • Shifting between quantum realities...
  • Althistorian & profiler...& the 1st lady of whiff
    • Dominion of British Columbia
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2012, 09:31:32 PM »
Nifty idea there. :)

Regarding the software: I use Gimp Shop, which is an open source and free equivalent of Photoshop (in fact, I prefer it over Photoshop, not just because it's open source and costs nothing). There IS a bit of a learning curve to it, but there are many good tutorials out there for it, and it's well worth spending the time to learn it!
"God save our Queen and heaven bless the Maple Leaf forever!"

Dominion of BC - https://dominionofbc.miraheze.org/wiki/British_Columbia

"Bernard, this doesn't say anything!" "Why thank you, Prime Minister."

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2012, 02:37:39 AM »
As for H names, what about Harwich, Harpenden, Harlow or Honiton.

I've got it flying in War in the Pacific Admiral's Edition as the Huntingdon ;) HP don't seem to have got far enough on with the HP.55 to suggest names, but they were quite proactive in offering up possible 'H' names in a number of other cases.

Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2012, 08:29:37 PM »
^ Well that was going to be my next suggestion!  ;)

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Short Seamew
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2012, 11:43:52 PM »
The ungainly Short Seamew was designed for anti-submarine work from escort carriers to specification M.123D in 1951 and first flown in 1953. The requirement was intended to provide the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm and the RAF's Coastal Command with a simple, cheap aircraft capable of surge production to counter the rapidly growing Soviet submarine fleet - essentially a Cold War equivalent of the Fairey Swordfish. Following initial trials the Seamew was ordered for both the Royal Navy, as the AS.1 to replace the ASW-modified Avengers used by the RNVR Air Branch, and by Coastal Command, as the MR.2. However Coastal Command lost interest in the small Seamew as it faced cuts to its more capable Neptunes and Shackletons, while the Royal Navy order was cancelled in the 1957 defence cuts, which also eliminated the RNVR Air Branch in its entirety. In spite of its awkward looks, with fixed gear in an era of fast jets, the Seamew was fully capable of aerobatics and Short's chief test pilot claimed the Seamew's handling was 'vice-free', but other sources claim it had some vicious handling tendencies that were never entirely cured.

 The Seamew was powered by the Armstrong Siddeley Mamba ASM.6 turboprop, sensors included ASV radar and sonobuoys, while armament comprised 4 275lb depth charges in the internal bomb-bay and 4 underwing rocket projectiles. By removing the radar and radome, the bomb-bay could potentially be extended from 14ft to 17ft, allowing carriage of 6 depth charges, or a torpedo.

 A 1956 Flight article on the Seamew by Short's Chief Designer can be read here.




Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2012, 08:05:58 PM »
Cool! Always liked the Seamew.  :)

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #9 on: June 11, 2012, 03:09:00 AM »
Definitely not one you see often - great work!  Maybe some Seamews in the schemes of the Gannet operators next?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Av8fan

  • Guest
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2012, 08:05:30 AM »
Gimp tutorial start with remove white

http://robbievontrappsflyingcircus.com/?q=node/3

Here the rest:

http://robbievontrappsflyingcircus.com/?q=basictutorials

I use Gimp for most of my profiles.

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2012, 03:48:03 AM »
Maybe some Seamews in the schemes of the Gannet operators next?

I was actually thinking a BPF scheme, but I don't know when I'll get around to it, I'm working on a Short S.32 and a Jet Sturgeon at the moment (yes, I have a thing for Shorts, comes of 20 years working in their old Rochester factory).

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Short Jet Sturgeon
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2012, 04:05:53 AM »




The complicated development of the Short Sturgeon started with the S.6/43 requirement for a high-performance torpedo bomber and reconnaissance aircraft with a weight of no more than 24,000lb. Short Brothers were not invited to tender, but when the initial estimates from the firms that had been approached came in it became apparent that a twin-engined aircraft meeting all of the requirements was unlikely to weigh less than 26,000lbs, while a single-engined aircraft was unlikely to have better performance than those already in service. The S.6/43 requirement was allowed to continue, in case something useful might arise out of it, and there is some evidence to suggest Shorts submitted uninvited proposals for both single and twin-engined aircraft to meet S.6/43, which, like the proposals from other manufacturers, were not adopted.

Meanwhile the initial requirement was split in two with the torpedo bomber becoming O.5/43, and eventually the Fairey Spearfish, while the reconnaissance aircraft became S.11/43 for a reconnaissance aircraft with bomber capability to operate from the Ark Royal and Hermes class carriers that were building for service with the Royal Navy off Burma and Malaya and in the Pacific. Shorts submitted the twin Merlin S.38 Sturgeon as their tender, while Armstrong Whitworth proposed the twin Merlin powered AW.54 and, after the AW.54 was criticized for lack of power, the AW.54A with two MetroVick F.3 turbojets, submissions were also made by Blackburn and Fairey with twin Merlin designs and Westland with a mixed-power design with a Pratt and Whitney R.4360 radial in the nose and a Halford H.1 turbojet in the tail. On 19th October 1943 Shorts received an order for three Sturgeon S.1 prototypes, with the tailored requirements following in February 1944.

The Sturgeon S.1 flew for the first time on 7th June 1946, and proved to have excellent handling. As initially developed it was a neat and compact three-seater with navigator and radio-operator carried within the fuselage, powered by two 2080hp Merlin 140s driving contra-rotating propellers (in order to minimise the yaw from asymmetric power in the single engine out situation). Provision was made in the design for the later replacement of the Merlins with Griffons. Fuel tanks held 410 gallons of fuel. ASV radar was carried in the nose, while armament comprised 2 or 4 .50 Brownings in the lower nose, a single 1000lb bomb, or equivalent combinations of smaller bombs or depth charges, in the bomb bay, and up to 16 60lb/3 inch Rocket Projectiles under the wings. Two F.52 cameras and a single F.24 camera were carried for the reconnaisance role, which was intended to be flown with a crew of two and a 180 gallon long-range tank in the bomb bay.

A contemporary article on the Sturgeon S.1 can be found here.

Unfortunately by the time the Sturgeon flew the war was over and construction of the Ark Royal and Hermes class carriers had been suspended. It was theoretically possible to operate the Sturgeon from the Illustrious and Colossus class carriers, but at the cost of keeping the aircraft on deck at all times and of having to rework the arrester gear on the Illustrious class. The requirement for the Sturgeon S.1 was therefore abandoned. The Sturgeon did see successful service with the fleet, but as the largely shore-based Sturgeon TT.2 high speed target tug with a grossly elongated nose holding a camera position. Later in their career a handful were reworked as TT.3s with a nose much closer to the original design. Later still Shorts attempted to develop the Sturgeon into the SB.3 as a competitor for the Fairey Gannet, replacing the engines with Armstrong Siddeley Mamba turboprops and installing a grotesque nose housing both a large radar scanner and two sensor operator positions. Unfortunately the downward exhaust of the Mambas, which varied with thrust, destabilized the SB.3's handling throughout the envelope and it proceeded no further.

The Jet Sturgeon shown here is based on an illustration of a Shorts proposal reproduced in British Secret Projects 3, and probably originated with N.21/45, an urgent FAA requirement for a night fighter to replace the Fairey Firefly. It is likely the unidentified design is the Shorts S.41. N.21/45 was written around the modification of the De Havilland Sea Hornet for the night fighter role, however this was considered high risk as the Sea Hornet was designed as a single-seater with the most compact fuselage possible, meaning space would need to be found to shoe-horn a radar operator into the fuselage somewhere, while a radar scanner would need to be installed in the nose, which was almost completely masked by the Sea Hornet's engines. The Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (Air) therefore directed that a night fighter variant of the Sturgeon should be investigated as an alternative design against failure of the Sea Hornet NF.21. It was recognised that the Sea Hornet would be the superior combat aircraft, with considerably better performance, but the Sturgeon conversion would be considerably lower risk. In the event the Sea Hornet NF.21 was successfully deployed with the fleet in 1949.

The Jet Sturgeon Nightfighter retained the wing of the Sturgeon S.1, but replaced the Merlins with two Rolls Royce AJ.40 turbojets (Axial Jet, 4000lb thrust - the well-known Avon started as the AJ.60). The fuselage was modified, raising the nose relative to the engine nacelles to maximise the arcs of the AI radar in the nose radome (the Sea Hornet NF.21 ultimately carried ASH radar in an elongated 'thimble' radome, but the considerably larger radome of the Sturgeon would potentially have been able to carry other AI sets with larger antennae), while the tailplane was moved half-way up the tail in order to clear it from the jet efflux. The crew was reduced to pilot and radar operator, the latter having a canopy of his own. The Brownings of the S.1 were replaced by 4 20mm Hispanos, while the space freed by the elimination of the radiators, bomb load, cameras and radio-operator was used to increase the fuel load to 910 gallons in 9 separate tanks.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2012, 04:10:36 PM »
Cool!
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2012, 09:16:50 AM »
Sturgeon NF.II of 1782 NAS, serving with the British Pacific Fleet and shore-based at Manus in August 1946 for defence of the fleet anchorage at Seeadler Harbour against Japanese night-raiders.






Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2012, 10:00:18 AM »
 :)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline dwg

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: DG's Profiles
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2012, 12:38:37 AM »
Realised after I put it up I'd completely forgotten the aircraft number - d'oh! (Absence of a carrier code on the tail is deliberate given a shore base - did Manus ever get a base code?)