Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
70s studies were based on the paper version of the Tornado F.2. Engine and drag issues later revealed toned things down a bit.

Was a TF41 (Spey)  F-14 looked at? More thrust/better SFC than TF30 and commonality with F4K/M. DOAE studies I've seen at Kew don't seem to look at options, just vanilla F-14/F.2
There was of course the Me 155 developed from the Me 109 that later became a high-altitude fighter and later given the Blohm und Voss to complete.
Also I've seen mention of a  Blohm und Voss asymmetric design (P.62) as a "Marine-Stuka" but I have no idea if that was meant to be carrier-based or not.

I guess the answer is the Graf Zeppelin would have used whatever aircraft the Luftwaffe would be willing to supply. Given their tendency to ignore the Navy's needs it may have been the carrier would have made do with whatever existing carrier-based types remained by 1944 or limited production of replacements, e.g. Me-109T based on the Me-109G and Ju-87C based on the Ju-87D/H series.
Patent Pending / Re: George Miles concepts 1956
« Last post by Schneiderman on May 23, 2017, 11:35:47 pm »
Well its a patent, so deliberately short on specific details regarding load, range etc. The load-carrier component was to be of simple and cheap construction with short-life engines, maybe to include rockets.
As ORs by their very nature were confidential documents how widely would they have been circulated and discussed? F.G.Miles were a very small operation in the mid 1950s so would they have been included in those briefed on the OR? I know little about what they may have been involved in beyond the aircraft they built, Sparrowjet, Student and Aerovan, but were Fred and George well regarded at the cutting edge of design and likely to have been consulted?
The most likely candidate to me would have been the Fw 190. The Graf Zeppelin could carry a rather limited
number of aircraft only, compared to other carriers. The fighter bomber versions of the Fw 190 probably still
were able to stand on their own feet (after dropping their load) and to be used as pure fighters in a naval
environment. The landing gear was considered to be tough and tests to carry torpedoes had been conducted, too.
And manufacturing was in full swing up to the end of the war. AFAIK after construction/completion of the GZ was
stopped, there was only one attempt to restart it around 1942. To me, this was the last point, that its completion
was something like "possible", because later allied air supremacy probably wouldn't have allowed for such a ship
to join the Kriegsmarine. Carriage of torpedoes was tested with the F-8 version, the F was brought into service in
1942, so it could have been on time.
"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.

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 May 23, 2017, 02:15:19 pm »
Hmmm...very interesting, a variation on Blue Moon and the Minimum Conventional Bomber. Payload a 20000lb Special  Weapon I suppose?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10