RAE Ben: Following the Light at the End of the Tunnel

Tiger2

F-5 Addict
Joined
26 November 2020
Messages
27
Reaction score
38
I just began reading the book British Secret Projects Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles by Chris Gibson and Tony Buttler. So far it's been an interesting read, especially with the opening chapters all about the early attempts at guided weapons by the British. There are several more well known (but still very obscure) ones like the RAE Larynx (basically a small drone airplane that was meant to be guided by an autopilot to crash into and explode at an enemy ship, effectively an ancient ASM) and the REME Brakemine (early beam-riding attempt at a SAM missile, similar to the one I will discuss). But there is one that was particularly intriguing to me and seems to have no real documentation online, the RAE Ben. Named after the man who thought it up, Flt Lt B. S. Benson, the missile comprised of a nose cone housing a guidance system and the explosive warhead, four static fins that kept the Ben stable in flight, propelled by twin 3in rocket boosters, and four jets in the nose selectively fired to steer the Ben. I believe the most interesting part of this early SAM is the guidance method: photoelectric guidance, using the phenomenon of electrons being released when radiation like light hits something. Because radar at the time was not good enough to create a concentrated beam for a missile to reliably follow and that spinning propellers could cause "jitter" and lead to an unreliable lock, the Ben was instead developed around the unconventional photoelectric system where using a radar-guided searchlight with a launch rail for the missile, they would shine the light onto the intended target and fire the missile, which would be flown into the light's beam and photoelectronic sensors in the missile would keep it fixed on the beam of light. A radar would track Ben's distance to the target and when it reached a satisfactory distance the searchlight would be switched off which activated the detonator in the missile making it explode and hopefully destroy its target. Ben seemed to be close to be actually used but advances in radar technology made it better suited for guiding a missile which lead for a revised radar-guided Ben to be worked on but priorities shifted from defence of Britain to the invasion of Germany as the war turned to the Allies' favor, making development slow and the missile to never see use in the war. I thought that this was very interesting since I never knew there were such serious attempts from Britain to make a guided weapon, let alone one guided by essentially a big flashlight!

1682956904877.png
An illustration of the RAE Ben from the book.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to see you're still using my old drawings (without credit, despite your assurances). You could have had the nice new hi-res recent ones.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Sorry to see you're still using my old drawings (without credit, despite your assurances). You could have had the nice new hi-res recent ones.

Chris

You do kind of get a mention in the sources at the bottom of the articles -

* British rocketry during World War II - John Becklake, AAS History Series, Vol. 14 (1993)
* British Secret Projects 4: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles - C. Gibbons, T. Battler, Midland Publishing (1997)
. Publishers (1993) - Even if you want to, you'll be able to get your hands dirty.
* Seaslug Story - Flight, 25 January 1962, pp. 1420143
* Museum of Applied Arts & Sciences, Australia.

I mean, Chris Gibbons, that's pretty close right?
220px-Gibson_LP_Classic.png AXFK6HPCCREPNLOAAHLQHTUAXI.jpg
 
Sorry to see you're still using my old drawings (without credit, despite your assurances). You could have had the nice new hi-res recent ones.
Hold on, I credited you in sources list in each article where I used any kind of drawing or data from your book (albeit I managed to make a dumb mistake with your name and copy-pasted it - and nobody for years even pointed on it! For that mistake I'm sorry)
 
Last edited:
Sorry to see you're still using my old drawings (without credit, despite your assurances). You could have had the nice new hi-res recent ones.
Hold on, I credited you in sources list in each article where I used any kind of drawing or data from your book (albeit I managed to make a dumb mistake with your name and copy-pasted it - and nobody for years even pointed on it!)
Who could determine from that credit at the end of each article that these were my drawings? As previously discussed on here, had you had the common courtesy of asking permission to use the drawings, you'd be able to credit them properly (at each drawing, as is the traditional manner) you'd have been provided with hi-res much better images, including the CGI images I have of Ben etc in action.

I think anyone on this forum, and fellow researchers, will attest to my generosity with drawings, but I do expect a certain level of recognition.

Credit them as I have requested and I can, as I have said in the past, provide better drawings rather than wobbly scans. All I ask is to be given credit for my (copyrighted) drawings and while you're at it, other people's material on there. I think you'll agree that's a small price to pay (i.e. nothing) for better artwork and at the end of the day, good artwork makes or breaks any author's work in this field.

Chris

PS One place I worked, I was known as the Funky Gibbon (older readers will understand that reference) usually Tannoyed as 'Funky the Mud Man', so that name error doesn't bother me one bit. Actually, I quite like that. I might just use that as my handle from now on.
 
Lovely!

PNG, JPG or TIFS? Which would you prefer.

Chris
 
PS One place I worked, I was known as the Funky Gibbon (older readers will understand that reference) usually Tannoyed as 'Funky the Mud Man', so that name error doesn't bother me one bit. Actually, I quite like that. I might just use that as my handle from now on.
Do, do, do....

Sorry, couldn't resist!

SRJ.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom