Britist specification G.4/31 General-purpose/torpedo bomber

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi!
Blackburn B-7.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_B-7

Picture source
https://tg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BA%D1%81:BlackburnB7.jpg

G.4/31 General-purpose/torpedo bomber – Wapiti & Gordon replacement – Wellesley one of two designs submitted by Vickers and itself a PV – see also G.22/35
Blackburn B-7, Bristol Type 120, Fairey G.4/31, Handley Page H.P.47, Hawker P.V.4, Parnall G.4/31, Vickers G.4/31, Vickers Wellesley, Westland PV-7
 

Attachments

  • Blackburn B-7.jpg
    Blackburn B-7.jpg
    93.5 KB · Views: 175
  • BlackburnB7.jpg
    BlackburnB7.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 173

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi! Bristol type 118/120.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Type_118
"The Bristol Type 118 was a general-purpose military aircraft, a two-seat biplane built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company in the early 1930s, powered by a Bristol Mercury radial engine and aimed at overseas markets. The Type 120 was a Bristol Pegasus-engined variant entered into an Air Ministry competition and later used for armament tests. Two aircraft were built."

Russian site
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft34425.htm
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/bristol118.html
 

Attachments

  • bristol type 120.gif
    bristol type 120.gif
    190.7 KB · Views: 34
  • type 120 pic3.jpg
    type 120 pic3.jpg
    40.4 KB · Views: 23
  • type 120 pic2.jpg
    type 120 pic2.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 151
  • 1265-1.jpg
    1265-1.jpg
    85.2 KB · Views: 160
  • 1264-1.jpg
    1264-1.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 166

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi! Fairey G.4/31.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_G.4/31

Picture source
https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ww2planes/ww2-fairey/42486/view/fairey_g-4-31/
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft31606.htm
 

Attachments

  • fairey-g-4-31.png
    fairey-g-4-31.png
    97.7 KB · Views: 38
  • faireyg431-3.jpg
    faireyg431-3.jpg
    54 KB · Views: 36

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Handley Page HP.47 is here.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7776.0.html
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hawker P.V.4.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.V.4

Russian site
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww1/hawkerpv4.html
 

Attachments

  • hawkerpv4-1.gif
    hawkerpv4-1.gif
    198.9 KB · Views: 33
  • hawkerpv4-4.jpg
    hawkerpv4-4.jpg
    36.8 KB · Views: 35

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Vickers type 253.

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Type_253
"The Vickers Type 253 used a Pegasus IIM3 engine, enclosed by a drag-reducing Townend ring, to power a two-bay, unstaggered biplane, with a lower wing smaller in span and chord. Both wings were of constant chord, but the centre sections were mildly forward-swept and the lower centre section carried anhedral out to the inner interplane struts. Both sets of interplane struts leaned outwards, the outer ones more so. Both wings carried ailerons and the upper planes had leading edge slats. The wings joined the fuselage top and bottom with no gap, the pilot sitting just ahead of the leading edge in an open cockpit and the observer sitting well behind the trailing edge. A conventional tail carried balanced rudder and elevators. The split-axle fixed undercarriage was neatly mounted, the main legs fixed to the front spar under the inner interplane struts and braced rearwards to the wing roots."

Picture source
http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww15/b/1863/9/0
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_g4-31.php
https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?89302-Photo-of-the-V-A-Type-253
https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2041715-Vickers-253

What is the pad at upper wing root??
 

Attachments

  • vickers253_3v.jpg
    vickers253_3v.jpg
    123.4 KB · Views: 47
  • VickersType253G4-31K2771BrooklandsP.jpg
    VickersType253G4-31K2771BrooklandsP.jpg
    64.4 KB · Views: 42
  • vickers_g4-31.gif
    vickers_g4-31.gif
    36.1 KB · Views: 52
  • Vickers type 253.jpg
    Vickers type 253.jpg
    142 KB · Views: 52

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
blackkite said:
What is the pad at upper wing root??

Just an aerodynamic fillet.

I don't really understand why you are posting all of these well-known types (i.e. not 'secret projects') with links to simple generic sources like Wikipedia and Aviastar
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
I follow the rules of the Forum. And these aircraft are unknown for me same as some people.
If I am wrong, perhaps moderator will delete it immediately.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
Maybe so, but the forum is titled 'Secret Projects - unbuilt projects, military and aerospace technology' not 'aircraft that are unknown to me'. If your source of data are sites like basic ones like Wikipedia it is probably not really something that needs posting here. It is the unusual and unbuilt aircraft that we really prefer to see.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
I understand that to post prototype is no problem.
I believe that discussion is very important.
I believe wikipedia need update through discussion.
By posting in this forum, discussions may be made and new insights may be obtained as you see recently.
I think it would be better to do something than not do anything.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
Its not a problem, its just that they have been described and seen so many times. They are in several books and magazines and all over the internet.

Try this
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,22995.msg250607.html#msg250607 post #4
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,643
Reaction score
6,510
Schneiderman said:
I don't really understand why you are posting all of these well-known types (i.e. not 'secret projects') with links to simple generic sources like Wikipedia and Aviastar

I agree with my dear Schneiderman,

you must send in this section the little known aircraft (for most of us) and Projects,and not
a famous airplanes ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    151.8 KB · Views: 54
  • 2.png
    2.png
    76.5 KB · Views: 68
  • 3.png
    3.png
    255 KB · Views: 55

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
I see well known aircraft in various contributions in this board. ;D
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
No I enjoyed those contributions very much. ;)
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
624
Schneiderman said:
the forum is titled 'Secret Projects - unbuilt projects, military and aerospace technology' not 'aircraft that are unknown to me'. If your source of data are sites like basic ones like Wikipedia it is probably not really something that needs posting here. It is the unusual and unbuilt aircraft that we really prefer to see.

Hear, hear. I definitely support this. The characteristic differentiation of this forum is quality over quantity.
Low signal-to-noise and beginners' forums are already all over the net.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
This forum is for every air enthusiast.
If you have such great information, please post it fast.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
Well I come here to find (and pots) new information on rare aircraft, unknown projects and unusual designs. If I want to find out about well known types I go to Wikipedia and similar sites. I don't see any value in just duplicating Wikipedia on this site, where is the interest and value in that?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Well, there are many ways to enjoy this forum for each person. You can choice information as you like.
I think it's better not to "raise" the threshold too much.Discouraging a person's willingness.
A person does not see wikipedia without a chance.
It is more efficient to see information as unified as possible.
 

dan_inbox

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
624
blackkite said:
This forum is for every air enthusiast.
Yes. As long as they abide by the forum's rules. Check them at https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21728.0.html
Posting Topic Guidelines
. The primary purpose of the forum is to discuss unbuilt military and aerospace/military technology in various forms.
(...)
. The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects.
Everyone is welcome, but everyone, please behave yourself. As simple as that.

Your posts and your enthusiasm are refreshing and very much welcome, when they stick with the purpose of this forum. I really mean this, and I'm sure others too.
But if you feel a need for re-posting already commonplace information that is available on wikipedia or such, then this is not the right place. Such posts only dilute and lower the quality of this forum. That is understandably less welcome.

Do not understand my remarks or Schneiderman's as "you're not welcome", because you are. We're only saying: please respect the purpose of this forum when posting here.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
I think there are many purpose in this forum, not only primary purpose. Study, Research,Education, Question mentioned to wikipedia, Entertainment......
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
699
Yes. As long as they abide by the forum's rules. Check them at https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21728.0.html

I did . . .
"The primary purpose of the "Secret Projects" sections of this forum is to document real, but unbuilt, projects. Prototypes that didn't enter series production may also be appropriate at the discretion of the moderators. Aircraft built in series production should generally be discussed in the "Aerospace" section, warships, tanks and other military vehicles in the Military section, etc."

Now, the title of this thread is " British specification G.4/31 General-purpose/torpedo bomber, and not " British specification G.4/31 General-purpose/torpedo bomber - just the unbuilt and undocumented projects", so in order to place everything in context, we need to have the 'well known' contenders here as well, and I feel that an image and a link is sufficient for this . . . if I want to know more I can start from here.
Plus, as Blackkite has stated, the 'well known' types are not well known to everyone . . .
Also as we know, sites like Wikipedia are not always accurate, and often can't be corrected. This forum should be a place for this information to be discussed, corrected, and posted, so that that this correct information is available online . . .
Just my two pence worth . . .


cheers,
Robin.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
699
It's my understanding that no drawings of the Parnall G.4/31 aircraft are known to exist . . . would it be too much to hope for that Lottie has any in her collection . . . ?

cheers,
Robin.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
But posting material here with Wikipedia as the primary source? Surely we should aim to do better than that otherwise all these threads would be nothing but a link.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,505
Reaction score
1,726
I'm fairly well read on the interwar projects, yet seeing all the contenders pulled together I'm noticing stuff I hadn't seen before. The major competitors to these projects are well known, yet at the same time there are others that are less well known, so fully worthy of a place here, and placing them in context adds considerable information - were they more or less advanced than their competitors? Closer to the requirement, or less so? And so on. I think there's actually considerable value to a specification based thread in providing mutual context.

WRT Wikipedia, it's a useful aggregator of information. I could type in a summary of what the Putnam's volumes say on any of these aircraft and no one would blink, if I cut and paste someone else's summary of the same info from wiki, what's the difference?

And these aircraft may be reasonably well known to us, as followers of British interwar projects, but are they as well known to Blackkite, or other non-British contributors?

ETA: And for that matter the P.66 in Hesham's post is new to me. I presume that's the Boulton Paul submission?
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
Aggregation is fine but I still see little merit is simply citing Wiki, which is generally cut-and-paste Putnam anyway. The value of this site is that it aims to add new information, not just gives links to very obvious secondary sources. Things will decline very rapidly if we just become a summarised encylopedia of aircraft, we should aim for something better.
As an example, Hesham's endless searching through old magazines has located a large amount of unusual projects etc. that go a long way to putting the aircraft we know into a broader context, and that is surely the kind of thing we should champion. Its the unbuilt, unseen, unusual that lies at the heart of the forum.
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
699
DWG said:
I'm fairly well read on the interwar projects, yet seeing all the contenders pulled together I'm noticing stuff I hadn't seen before. The major competitors to these projects are well known, yet at the same time there are others that are less well known, so fully worthy of a place here, and placing them in context adds considerable information - were they more or less advanced than their competitors? Closer to the requirement, or less so? And so on. I think there's actually considerable value to a specification based thread in providing mutual context.

WRT Wikipedia, it's a useful aggregator of information. I could type in a summary of what the Putnam's volumes say on any of these aircraft and no one would blink, if I cut and paste someone else's summary of the same info from wiki, what's the difference?

And these aircraft may be reasonably well known to us, as followers of British interwar projects, but are they as well known to Blackkite, or other non-British contributors?

Couldn't have put it better myself . . .

ETA: And for that matter the P.66 in Hesham's post is new to me. I presume that's the Boulton Paul submission?

Yes, you are correct . . .


Schneiderman said:
. . . The value of this site is that it aims to add new information, not just gives links to very obvious secondary sources. Things will decline very rapidly if we just become a summarised encylopedia of aircraft, we should aim for something better.

Agreed, which is why in my previous post I said we should be correcting and enhancing the generally available information . . .

As an example, Hesham's endless searching through old magazines has located a large amount of unusual projects etc. that go a long way to putting the aircraft we know into a broader context,

And vice versa! If for example, we just make a post about the Boulton Paul P.66 in isolation, we have no context within which to evaluate the design. Post it here, in the 'G.4/31' thread, and that information is here, where it's useful. Another example, in your excellent Schneider Trophy book (I have a copy), you don't just write about the unbuilt projects, you also include the 'well known', which you have to, in order to tell the complete story. It's the same in this situation, I believe . . .

. . . and that is surely the kind of thing we should champion. Its the unbuilt, unseen, unusual that lies at the heart of the forum.

Again, agreed, however, if we abandon the broader view, we risk disappearing ever more deeply down an ever narrowing rabbit hole . . .


cheers,
Robin.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi! Westland P.V.7 and Parnall G.4/31 pictures.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Braas/8319.htm
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/parnallg431.html
http://all-aero.com/index.php/54-planes-p-q-e-r-s/7656-parnall-g431
 

Attachments

  • pv7-1.jpg
    pv7-1.jpg
    153.1 KB · Views: 110
  • parnallg431-2.jpg
    parnallg431-2.jpg
    56.6 KB · Views: 115
  • 8319L-1.jpg
    8319L-1.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 114

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi! Armstrong-Whitworth A.W.19, private venture aircraft for G.4/31.

Picture source
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/aw19.html
 

Attachments

  • aw19-1.gif
    aw19-1.gif
    172.1 KB · Views: 114
  • 635-2.jpg
    635-2.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 102

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Hi! Vickers type 246, Vickers' private venture to G.4/31.
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art7112.htm
 

Attachments

  • Vickers type 246.jpg
    Vickers type 246.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 29
  • 9_6.jpg
    9_6.jpg
    107.5 KB · Views: 59

iverson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
581
Reaction score
507
robunos said:
DWG said:
I'm fairly well read on the interwar projects, yet seeing all the contenders pulled together I'm noticing stuff I hadn't seen before. The major competitors to these projects are well known, yet at the same time there are others that are less well known, so fully worthy of a place here, and placing them in context adds considerable information - were they more or less advanced than their competitors? Closer to the requirement, or less so? And so on. I think there's actually considerable value to a specification based thread in providing mutual context.

WRT Wikipedia, it's a useful aggregator of information. I could type in a summary of what the Putnam's volumes say on any of these aircraft and no one would blink, if I cut and paste someone else's summary of the same info from wiki, what's the difference?

And these aircraft may be reasonably well known to us, as followers of British interwar projects, but are they as well known to Blackkite, or other non-British contributors?

Couldn't have put it better myself . . .

ETA: And for that matter the P.66 in Hesham's post is new to me. I presume that's the Boulton Paul submission?

Yes, you are correct . . .


Schneiderman said:
. . . The value of this site is that it aims to add new information, not just gives links to very obvious secondary sources. Things will decline very rapidly if we just become a summarised encylopedia of aircraft, we should aim for something better.

Agreed, which is why in my previous post I said we should be correcting and enhancing the generally available information . . .

As an example, Hesham's endless searching through old magazines has located a large amount of unusual projects etc. that go a long way to putting the aircraft we know into a broader context,

And vice versa! If for example, we just make a post about the Boulton Paul P.66 in isolation, we have no context within which to evaluate the design. Post it here, in the 'G.4/31' thread, and that information is here, where it's useful. Another example, in your excellent Schneider Trophy book (I have a copy), you don't just write about the unbuilt projects, you also include the 'well known', which you have to, in order to tell the complete story. It's the same in this situation, I believe . . .

. . . and that is surely the kind of thing we should champion. Its the unbuilt, unseen, unusual that lies at the heart of the forum.

Again, agreed, however, if we abandon the broader view, we risk disappearing ever more deeply down an ever narrowing rabbit hole . . .


cheers,
Robin.

I agree. As far as Wikipedia goes, I have noticed that the aviation-related content seems to expand enormously every year. I am pretty well read on the subject and have a large library of my own. Yet I regularly find photos and references to valuable primary and secondary sources in Wikipedia articles. So I'm not inclined to look askance at citations that point me to it.

I would only add that I'd hate to see the discussion on this forum degenerate into the contentiousness and nitpicking that plagues so many other special-interest sites--most of which go dormant soon afterward. Rules are needed. But flexibility and tolerance make rules work.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
973
Well I'm clearly outnumbered here but I would still urge anyone starting a new thread to at least try to include some form of new information and not just recycle easily-located material. As it say in the 'rules' - "Google is your friend" - for the basic stuff, as a Secret Projects forum we should aim to dig a little deeper.
 

Lottie

Anything Parnall Yate related
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
8
Reaction score
7
In response to reply 22 I only have attached 3 view print from Air Pictorial magazine Sept 1963.
No others in my misc collection of prints.
Once I get decent digital copies will try to post as many as I can.
 

Attachments

  • G.4_31.pdf
    125.6 KB · Views: 60

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,400
Wow amazing drawing!! :eek: Thank you very much. :D
Especially vertical tail stabilizer/rudder shape is unique.
What is the device located front of the wind shield? Oil cooler?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29644.0;attach=589373;image
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,643
Reaction score
6,510
Lottie said:
In response to reply 22 I only have attached 3 view print from Air Pictorial magazine Sept 1963.
No others in my misc collection of prints.
Once I get decent digital copies will try to post as many as I can.

Amazing drawing,thank you Lottie.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    53 KB · Views: 135

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
699
Lottie said:
In response to reply 22 I only have attached 3 view print from Air Pictorial magazine Sept 1963.

Many thanks, indeed . . . ;D
Another long hoped for drawing emerges into the light . . .


cheers,
Robin.
 

Similar threads

Top