Apophenia's Offerings

[perttime]

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.

[apophenia]

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.

 

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 

The 'Yule Goat' may be a little hard to take for those raised on saccharine Santas ... but Nuuttipukki is even scarier 

[apophenia]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

 

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.

[apophenia]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

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

[apophenia]

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

Very much of interest! Thanks Greg 

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.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[robunos]

How about with Army Lynx skids, or Navy Lynx tricycle U/C . . . ?


cheers,
Robin.

[apophenia]

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 

[GTX_Admin]

A mast mounted sign might work as well

[apophenia]

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

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).

[Kerick]

Both look really good!
If you can incorporate a more powerful engine all the better.

[apophenia]

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.

[apophenia]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

Has a bit of an AMX or AIDC AT-3 look to it.

[perttime]

What if you made forward fuselage more like the AMX, with a pretty straight belly line? Could that work?

[apophenia]

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?

[apophenia]

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

[apophenia]

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.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[apophenia]

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

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

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.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

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. 

[apophenia]

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 

[M.A.D]

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