Room 101 Aircraft

That bloody Russian flying wing thingy in a recent Aeroplane Monthly – the Belyaev DB-LK.

No thanks!

Where is this room ? I’d like to take some photos
🙂

The Dornier Do-X is pretty bad!

I meant the lengthy way it was developed via the Types 508, 529 & 525.

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/supermarine_508.php

Ah yes, put that way I can see what you are getting at and have to agree. Protracted development like that never does a design any favours.

From a engineers point of view the most hated has to be a Gnat!! Everything is either ****ing awkward to reach or utterly unreachable.

still not sure but…

…Er, OK, this is where the argument falls down a bit. But it’s all in fun right? .

Fun, but worth a punt – got me looking through “interceptor” by james goulding & british secret projects.Not sure on the BP design, Martin baker maybe, MB3 & 5 (later than 1941 though) and I’ve had a soft spot for Whirlwinds for years. The Hawker Tornado didn’t seem to have the Vulture problems of the Manchester, but no range. maybe, the earlier designs, Bristol 146 would have been at a later stage (MK 4 etc?) or the Gloster F5/34? maybe I’m talking out of my hat…. but its an interesting question…

Personal pet hate – P51’s polished so they look like (to me at least) toys.
Most appalling aircraft – Saunders Roe Lerwick

There was some good news though, it caused the grounding of Grob Tutors for a while!:D

The Tutor was second choice anyway for that competition (MOD procurement). The FLS Sprint (or whatever it was at the time) was described as a nicer aircraft to fly etc. and was only passed over because the manufacturing stuff wasn’t ready.

Someone once said that everything that flies is beautiful.

However surely that was before Hermann Blohm was bored one afternoon and asked Ernst Voss if he’d ever considered designing flying machines.

that is one of the best quotes ive ever heard 😀

Someone once said that everything that flies is beautiful.

However surely that was before Hermann Blohm was bored one afternoon and asked Ernst Voss if he’d ever considered designing flying machines.

which designs would have come into service in 1941? am just curious, i agree with the romantic notions of saving britain etc that distort the spit & hurricane stories, but what would have gone into service in 1941?

Hurricanes at near development end, Spits at the start etc, but I’m at work and not switched on enough to think this through, but for conversations sake, what would you say could have gone into service in 1941 if no Spits?

…Er, OK, this is where the argument falls down a bit. But it’s all in fun right? The Mustang was available to RAF squadrons at the tail end of ’41, and Typhoons were about too. Both led to designs that surpassed the Spit, but not in every regard and not in their ’41 guises. What did Britain need in ’41? Long range escort fighters and fighter bombers – neither of which the Spit did as well as others, but hey. I think it was partly as a result of the lack of suitable replacements (mainly the failure of the Tiffie as an air superiority fighter) that led to the Spit having to soldier on for so long.

Interesting developments for me were Boulton Paul’s 4-Hispano armed single seat Defiant development that reputedly have been good for 360mph and much easier to build and service than the Spitfire. The Miles M20 is another good one – somewhere between Spit and Hurri in terms of out and out performance, but much better range than either and could carry twice as much ammo. Again, easy and quick to build and service with its ‘power egg’ Merlin installation. The Spit was not the only game in town.

Grob prop blade forced landing
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_030406.pdfcheers baz

There was some good news though, it caused the grounding of Grob Tutors for a while!:D

the grob is a great little aircraft!!! you obviously dont like flying that much 😛 though through the cadet grapvine when i was doing my gliding scholarship on the Vigilant i heard that one of them threw a prop blade sometime 2004-2005 according to a friend from a different Atc squadron it either lost its canopy or she was told to bail out (the cadet in the aircraft) can anyone substantiate this?

Grob prop blade forced landing

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_030406.pdf

cheers baz

Gannets still hideous, in MY opinion, anyway 🙂

But, Pagen, you’ve turned a ‘light hearted’ thread into a row!- and i would disagree about the A-1- very similar roles to the gannet- and more versatile

Hopefully not a row, a discussion! Like I say room 101 has arguments for and against, and the idea of forums is disscussion.
The Gannet from prototype on was always an anti-submarine strike aircraft (a dive bomber role was envisaged but dropped in developement). The Skyraider was not an anti-sub design but an attack aircraft, its versatility was as a ‘multiplex’ type (night attack, nuclear bomber, ECM, COD and AEW). It certainly couldn’t carry a large search radar and weapons together. The only single engined type I can think of to do this was the comparatively unsuccessful Grumman Guardian, and that relied on one aircraft carrying the search radar, with the other one carrying the weapons, operating in pairs. The Gannets opposite number in USN service was the Tracker.

Theres no need to get upset about other peoples choices, people like different things for different reasons just like music. I like queen and led zeppelin where as someone else might not. Now its ony a bit of fun!

Now id send the new lighting as
*Its stolen the name or the best jet fighter of all time
* Its replacing the beautiful harrier (which is ours lol)
* it looks horrible

thats MY view anyway

668
________
Honda Gb500 Specifications
________
Medical marijuana

can I ask XN923?

… we didn’t need them in 1940 and by 1941 we had better designs coming through – in the bin for Mitchell’s ‘finest’.

Don’t even get me started on the Seafire – that was just a waste of lives.

which designs would have come into service in 1941? am just curious, i agree with the romantic notions of saving britain etc that distort the spit & hurricane stories, but what would have gone into service in 1941?

Hurricanes at near development end, Spits at the start etc, but I’m at work and not switched on enough to think this through, but for conversations sake, what would you say could have gone into service in 1941 if no Spits?

Balkans as well

Slightly off thread, but all this criticism of the F-3 is intriguing to me, I presume that the Yanks knew all this when it was relegated to air tanker protection during the First Gulf War and not allowed anywhere near any real action.
Is this why the plan was hatched to use Hawks with an F-3 ‘shepherd’ to face up to any attack, the Hawks obviously being superior fighters!!
Well at least the Phantoms and Jags were about up to the so called end of the Cold War, and I wouldn’t think it possible to consider shoving those types in Room 101, or do some of you service types know otherwise.

The brits had to “pressure” to have the F-3’s included to police the no-fly zones. They just wanted them out of the way, yet wanted SHAR’s there as mini AWACs with the radar. Jags, no way, they could/should do a job in Afghanistan now, even being flown until the end of their fatigue lives, the Phantoms – Spey engined are a useful nomination for room 101 surely? slower, heavier, more expensive, just like the F-35B to repeat myself from earlier !!

But, Pagen, you’ve turned a ‘light hearted’ thread into a row!- and i would disagree about the A-1- very similar roles to the gannet- and more versatile

It is my PERSONAL opinion (as stated in the O P)- And i admit that not ALL of them were Turkeys, but a sufficient number of them were for there to be no more airliners built entirely in Britain- and as for political pressurers, surely the job of a manufacturer is to gain enough orders before an aircraft is built to warrant production-this means talking to as many prospective customers as possible (and not just the mother country)- and as for the Gannet, the Skyraider is much better looking and did a similar job!

And as in the real room 101 I’m providing a counter argument.
Most British airliners were built to stringent (if sometimes restrictive) British and Commonwealth requirements, the designs were submitted by the builders to these specifications. Just because many weren’t sold dosen’t make it a bad aircraft. The mite of Boeing and Airbus and changing global comerce saw to the fact we don’t build complete airliners in the UK anymore.
The Gannet and Skyraider certainly did not perform a similar job (apart from derivations in the AEW role) and besides the airframe requirements were completely different. The Grumman Tracker was nearer role and equipement wise, and the Gannet certainly looked sleeker that that.

I really don’t understand some of the choices, and I am being a bit of a pedant on a light hearted thread – maybe with a good explanation or argument it would be clearer.