Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
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.
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.
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:,4516.msg36561.html#msg36561

The Junkers EF 82 might have acted as a single seat replacement for the Stuka:,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:,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.

Schratt sometimes posts interesting potential conventional aircraft line art - he's a bit frustrating in that he sometimes straddles too far into the "ufos from space" thing but then he produces art that is definitely a conventional aircraft that would seem to indicate that he is a black aircraft watcher/enthusiast. 

Much of his art is based on sightings that other people describe though so maybe he just isn't discerning about what he receives and just cranks it out.

The two pictures towards the end of the thread here (the red white and blue aircraft and the aircraft with the canards) sure seem plausible.  Many of the myths/legends in the thread here over time seemed "too futuristic" whereas some seemed entirely plausible. 

At any rate, it will be interesting to see where this develops over the next few years.

Patent Pending / Re: George Miles concepts 1956
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 02:15:19 pm »
Hmmm...very interesting, a variation on Blue Moon and the Minimum Conventional Bomber. Payload a 20000lb Special  Weapon I suppose?

Patent Pending / Re: George Miles concepts 1956
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 01:47:33 pm »
Not totally out of the question but without any real use as a reconnaissance asset it would appear unlikely. The disposable part of the composite is a load carrier, the manned part a 'get-the-hell-out-of-there-pronto' aircraft

The question is the title of the topic itself. It is known that at first Bf 109 T and Ju 87 C would be used, but which would be used in the 1944 and 45, with better Allied counterparts?
Sorry, I really have to check properly.  Do you have any further information views of the Type XXIX H?
Article pending. :)
Patent Pending / Re: George Miles concepts 1956
« Last post by CJGibson on Today at 11:55:04 am »
R.156T was issued in October 1954 and RB.156D was issued in May 1956.  A bomber version of the original R.156 was being looked at (by the RAE) well before RB.156 was issued, so Joe's musings could be on the right track. Avro had designs for two-stage reconnaissance UAVs around the same time.

Patent Pending / Re: George Miles concepts 1956
« Last post by Schneiderman on Today at 09:45:15 am »
Probably not as this was designed purely as a bomber. The rear portion, carrying the bomb load, was to be disposable; either dropping the bombs and then crashing or carrying the bomb onto the target under radar guidance.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10