Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: In memory of Sir Roger Moore
« Last post by Michel Van on Today at 08:29:42 pm »
yes he was not only James Bond

but also Knight Ivanhoe


The Saint


Lord Brett Sinclair


next to that he play exellent in movie like in thriller "Gold" or adventure drama "Shout at the Devil"
2
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Today at 07:55:30 pm »
Nuke modernization debate.

We've neglected the Triad and nuke enterprise for 25 years and that there are still those saying do less or slow down is mind boggling to me.

Yep.  I hear that kind of crap sometimes and think, "you know, if we're this goddamn dumb maybe we deserve to go the way of the dodo".  Just absolutely stupifying that anybody could be that blind.  Almost as bad is when they think they're being aggressive by proposing schedules so strung out they'd make anybody from the 60s (or even the 80s) think they were joking.
3
The Bar / Re: In memory of Sir Roger Moore
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Today at 07:50:25 pm »
Moore was a good actor,  he never described himself as a great actor, just a lucky one.  He was originally offered Bond when it first started out but was already committed to the Saint TV series so couldn't do it.  When Connery finally left the franchise, he was really too old to play Bond but still gave it a go.  He wasn't the best but again he was lucky, coming along when budgets were bigger and special effects covered a lot of his deficiencies.  I still remember him in his other movies, The Wild Geese is one where he described how he and the other "old timers" spent most of the time stoned out of their minds in Africa smoking "waccy baccy" which Richard Burton had "sourced" somewhere locally.   I liked him in The Sea Wolves where he executed one of the smoothest "remove the lace up boots while seducing the starlet beside him" routines I've ever seen.  ;)   His TV work was quite good as well.  I still remember his Maverick and Ivanhoe series, which were well over 40 years ago.
4
"For the RAF the F14 with Phoenix Skyflash and AIM 9l would have been a formidable
air defence asset fromv1978 to the 2000s A longer service life and possibly fewer
aircraft as well as earlier phase out of Phantoms would have helped the cost."


You'd also need more tankers and AEW support for F-14s than the F.3s. This was examined and dismissed in the mid 70s.

Chris
5
The Bar / Re: In memory of Sir Roger Moore
« Last post by flateric on Today at 06:27:41 pm »
RIP, Sir


6
Go back even further for an actual example - the P-51 was originally designed by North American to a British requirement, and if only they had put a Merlin in it from the start (even a high-blown single-stage), it might have done wonders earlier than it did. And everyone forgets just how many B-29 bombers and F-86 fighters served with the RAF...

No need to play what-if, though it is fun; there are more than enough examples of WHEN.
7
I think the reason we all find this so satisfying to talk about is because of the nature of the British cancellations. Many of the US projects that never made it into production at least got to the prototype stage, where they demonstrated their inadequacy against the eventual winner, or they were killed when they were largely still a paper project.

To be consigned to the dustbin of history when your airplane has barely flown as a prototype (Arrow, TSR.2) - or worse, when it is still an unfinished prototype (P.1121) - or still worse, when it is not only an unbuilt prototype but a small set of partially built pre-production airplanes or tooling sets ready to go (thin wing Javelin, also SR.177 IIRC ) - is not only an injury but an insult. Worst of all is to be canned at this stage in favour of an airplane which is then likewise cancelled (thin wing Javelin, Arrow).

The flip side of course is those airplanes which turned out to have been completely unnecessary. For the RAF to cover its bases by ordering both the Vulcan and the Victor was understandable in light of the huge leaps they represented,  but in view of their success the Valiant was a waste and the Sperrin a worse one. What might Vickers have built with the Valiant's resources (a functional Red Dean?). What might Shorts have built with those of the Sperrin (teamed with SR and got the SR.177 in metal before the Sandys axe fell?). Chris Gibson argues that with Firestreak never having been shot in anger the Red Top was unnecessary, and in retrospect he is right. But tell that, in 1965, to the crew of a subsonic fleet interceptor who badly need a snap-up in-your-face missile to use against threats for which successful prosecution of a tail chase is impossible - and for whom failure means the nuclear obliteration of their battle group and nowhere to go home to.

Everything is easy with the retrospectoscope.
8
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 04:51:40 pm »
Nuke modernization debate.

We've neglected the Triad and nuke enterprise for 25 years and that there are still those saying do less or slow down is mind boggling to me. We've waited long enough (remember first new systems won't be in place til 2030 if then) I would not only accelerate modernization but I would build and test a whole new generation of warheads and new AMaRVs/HTV type systems.

Starts at 28 minutes

9
There was the Fieseler Fi 167 which would have acted as a torpedo bomber (and maybe seen anti-submarine use). The He 114 had been proposed but appears to have lost the competition. The Arado Ar-195C or Ar-197 could have possibly acted as a spotter: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4516.msg36561.html#msg36561

The Junkers EF 82 might have acted as a single seat replacement for the Stuka: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14491.msg144396.html#msg144396

Arado E-310 (Ar-240 related) and Fieseler (8-P22.00-102 or P22A/P22C) both had designs for twin engined carrier based multi-role attack aircraft:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4771.0/all.html

Catapult variants of the Messerschmitt Me 328 were considered, especially for submarine launch - but the Graff was scrapped by that time. The same goes for the Natter. These aircraft would also likely be single use (as it couldn't be recovered).

The Focke-Achgelis Krabbe helicopters could also be used, but that is highly speculative. One might also see the Fieseler Fi 156 U used (essentially a Storch outfitted with a depth charge). However, I'm not sure if either of these latter two aircraft were small enough without folding wings (particularly an issue for the Krabbe).

In conclusion: The most likely candidates are the EF-82 (or Ju-187) and a twin engine design by Fieseler or Arado. A FW-190 or later Bf-109T variant is also a possibility. Jets would be too slow to accelerate, however many jets towards the end of the war were proposed with reusable liquid rockets for assistance in taking off - so a hybrid rocket-jet with a large enough wing to allow landing at low speeds is a plausibility.

10
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Ca- 183bis
« Last post by hesham on Today at 03:00:34 pm »
This comes from the Caproni technical description brochure. BTW, this was the bis version, with the Campini-like engine. There was a Ca-183 with a traditional engine (inline) adapted to high altitude, but no drawing, for now. Look at it as a competitor in the informal contest for a high altitude interceptor in 1942-1943. If interested, I have truckloads of technical data. Enjoy

Hello Skybolt, I am highly interested in the Ca.183bis and would like to know if you would be willing to share your 'truckloads of technical data'.

Here is some technical data;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Campini_Ca.183bis
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10