English Electric P.42

[PlanesPictures]

Here

 

[Sundog]

Another one of my favorites, although I like the top pic the most with all three aircraft in formation. This bird is just a monster that eats speed. ;D

 

[Pioneer]

What was the date frame of the EE P.42 project?

It seems a pity that the West (i.e. NATO) could not get their act together, for imagine if the United States with their North American F-108 Rapier, Canada with their CF-105 Arrow and the British with their English Electric P.42 project had have worked together on a common Long-Range, Supersonic Interceptor, that would have been fielded by NATO?

M.A.D

 

[Archibald]

I missed these pics! I saw some of them in 2005 in your (former?) website, I'm gald to see them resurrected (along P.1134!!)

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/aircraft/hyper/p422.html

 

[KHambsch]

Didn't see these...so here they are.

 

[VictorXL188]

Didn't see these...so here they are.

Looking at that middle rear three quarter shot, I am getting Firefox (the film version) vibes

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Looks like a British MiG 25.

 

[MadRat]

I kind of liked the earlier version with squarish panels protecting the engines. Very much like an XB-70's panels.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Looking at that middle rear three quarter shot, I am getting Firefox (the film version) vibes

Yeah, I'm seeing it too.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What was the date frame of the EE P.42 project?

It seems a pity that the West (i.e. NATO) could not get their act together, for imagine if the United States with their North American F-108 Rapier, Canada with their CF-105 Arrow and the British with their English Electric P.42 project had have worked together on a common Long-Range, Supersonic Interceptor, that would have been fielded by NATO?

M.A.D

Personally, with hindsight, I think it's a good thing these aircraft ended up not being produced. 'Go fast, go straight, rely on missiles' hasn't proven a winning formula for combat aircraft.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Personally, with hindsight, I think it's a good thing these aircraft ended up not being produced. 'Go fast, go straight, rely on missiles' hasn't proven a winning formula for combat aircraft.

It works for dedicated interceptors, like the F-106 or MiG-25.

 

[scautomoton]

Personally, with hindsight, I think it's a good thing these aircraft ended up not being produced. 'Go fast, go straight, rely on missiles' hasn't proven a winning formula for combat aircraft.

For what purpose? The supersonic bomber threat never really materialised, so they would have been on a hiding to nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to see all of these cancelled super interceptors take to the sky. But ultimately, the right decision was made.

 

[Martes]

They can carry very long range missiles for the time, and they can also be used for strike role for heavy long-range anti-surface missiles. And rapidly move across the map.