dark light

The Short Sperrin Bomber, YUK, Glad they choose the Valiant!

Ugly Mothers :p , Any comments will do 😉 , Cheers, Tally Ho! Phil 😎

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

3,092

Send private message

By: dhfan - 11th August 2004 at 05:41

Made a useful flying testbed, though.
In the single pic, the lower engines are obviously a lot bigger than the top ones. That’s because the original Avons had been replaced by de Havilland Gyrons. 20,000lbs thrust each in 1955. IIRC, they peaked at 27,000lbs in 1957 before cancellation. I assume they were comfortably the most powerful engines around at that time. They had some fairly serious intake design flaws so the Hawker P.1121 mentioned on another thread might have had problems.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,892

Send private message

By: mike currill - 10th August 2004 at 09:19

For looks and being ugly I’d say it’s more closely related to the Handley Page O/400

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

462

Send private message

By: oscar duck - 10th August 2004 at 07:41

Fugly……obviously related to the Stirling/Skyvan/330/360

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

9,892

Send private message

By: mike currill - 10th August 2004 at 07:29

That’s not a mummy canberra. The aircraft that was mum to the canberra would have been better looking, no way anything as ugly as this beast could be any way considered a relative of the canberra

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

105

Send private message

By: Spiteful21 - 9th August 2004 at 22:33

Wasn’t the Sperrin designed as a fall back for the entire V-Bomber program? IIRC it was purely designed as a half step rather than a full step in Jet Bomber design (with less risk and lesschance of failure)

I think it probably would have been a bit like the B-45 Tornado in US service. A totally reliable albeit old technology airframe that really didn’t shine and had a short but useful service life.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,759

Send private message

By: stewart1a - 9th August 2004 at 21:19

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its a mummy canberra!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

449

Send private message

By: landyman - 9th August 2004 at 20:19

from what i have read they would have been better off sticking with the Sperrin, even if it does look more workmanlike it flew without losing big (and rather important) bits of airframe. also wasn’t it just as capable as the Valient?.
Greg

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

10,994

Send private message

By: Flood - 9th August 2004 at 20:13

Thought the Sperrin was the safety net should the Valiant – apparently a huge leap forward for the time – prove unworkable, being the usual tube with bombs in, fitted with wings with engines hanging from them (a bit simplified but y’know!).

Flood.â„¢

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,549

Send private message

By: turbo_NZ - 9th August 2004 at 19:52

Thanks for the pics, SB 262.
From what I recall reading, the Sperrin was intended as a Valiant replacement if it didn’t work out, if I am correct. But the Valiant was put into service, albeit with a fatigue-shortened life.

TNZ

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,904

Send private message

By: STORMBIRD262 - 9th August 2004 at 18:35

sent two, sorry

One More

Sign in to post a reply