Garden Centre find.

Well I hope it went to a good home. Last time I passed the Garden Center it was gone.
But at least preserved in pictures.

There were lots of Canberras with non-standard nose radomes – like VN828 and WG789, for example. It does look like something I’ve seen on a Canberra.

Completely wrong shape, size, section, and construction for either Canberra proto or Attacker, both of which had metal construction nose cones and no radar.
I’m not quite swayed by early Javelin either, though the diameter wouldn’t be far off.

Perhaps the only way to positively ID it would be to turn it over on its side (onto mattress/bubblewrap maybe) and see if there is a data/mod plate inside the metal ring.
Any part number/insp stamp code should be fairly conclusive!

rgds baz

I wondered if it might have been Supermarine Attacker but its not quite …

Wasn’t the prototype canberra a solid nose?

Some closeups.

The cone construction.

The ring at base.

BTW as to it being lightly constructed. I’ve no idea about aircraft nose cones but trying to tilt it
shows it’s pretty solid. Tapping the cone feels quite dense. It’s not flimsy or tinny.

Way to small to be Black Arrow (i.e. picture above) and not split in the right way. Wrong material for Polaris which was ply wood. Early Javalin I reckon.

I think I would concur with that aeronut, the cone looks too lightly constructed to be an aircraft nose cone to me, and the shape and scale seem right to the plans you’ve attached – must be a rare old item though?

This is why I thought it looked ‘missile’. ATTACH]204884[/ATTACH]
I know its only a drawing but it gives some indication of the size, and the shape is right.

It does have a Javelin look about it, how about one of the less pointy prototype radomes?

Interestingly a photo of this aircraft in the scrap compound at Farnborough show it with the cone missing, perhaps already doing service at the garden centre. Richard

IIRC, the tailcone was removed and blanked off flat for some of the engine trials – not sure if it was the Concorde Olympus or the Tornado engine nacelle fit. Presumably it wasn’t sufficiently robust to survive the jet efflux, or perhaps it interferred too much with the efflux for the tests.

I have an old/period small (about 6″ long) metal model of XA903 with ‘an’ engine nacelle slung under, and that is flat across the tail where the tailcone would have been.

That looks like it has straight sides, whereas the garden centre one has distinctly curved sides.

Simon

It looks as if a couple of different shape cones were used on B1 Vulcans, the one fitted to XA903 has the more curved sides. http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group_presentation/903bs.htm

Interestingly a photo of this aircraft in the scrap compound at Farnborough show it with the cone missing, perhaps already doing service at the garden centre. http://www.thevictorassociation.org.uk/?p=432

Richard

Too small for javelin??

I don’t think the end’s pointy enough for a javelin either.

When I asked the owner he said is was from a Canberra Bomber and if I knew anyone interested who wanted one let him know.

Did the owner say how he had acquired it? That may give some clue …

Would the construction be useful. I’ll post a close up.
Seems to be covered in a woven material type stuff. Could be fibre glass or carbon fibre? Just guessing.
The bit that interests me is the ring at the base. Looks a bit agricultural, heavy duty. But maybe that’s normal for aircraft.
I was wondering if it might be a drop tank nose.

I have permission to turn it over and will have a go next time. It was wet, slippery and algified and I couldn’t do it although it feels relatively light.

Its not a missile nose cone is it?

It’s Looking like you might be right Richard…

That looks like it has straight sides, whereas the garden centre one has distinctly curved sides.

Simon

A B1 Vulcan tailcone!

Richard

It’s Looking like you might be right Richard…

A B1 Vulcan tailcone!

Richard