Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplanes

Most Enlightning…

…I’ve just been given a large box of model bits which included a built-up FROG Bloodhound so was googling for some info to help rebuild it when a stumbled across this thread which has been a mine of information…thank you very much.

PS

Not every one in NZ is a total prat and our most powerful airdefence is not a manpad but owned by the RNZN: Sea Sparrow, CIWS and 127mm guns. Not a lot, I grant you, but a bigger bang than Mistral.

please forgive my ignorence, but i know very little about SAMs [or pilotless monoplanes]. i always thought the Bloodhound looked cool.
when was the last retired, how meny was built, how meny was launched in there time in service, what sort of range did they have ??????….
what is the RAFs main SAM today… is it the rapier ???.. 🙂

Sidewinder is in fact a 5in rocket with a seeker head attached and I would not call it anything but a rocket.

But it is an aircraft… why don’t you want to call it some kind of plane.

The Bloodhound was basically just a missile too, yet you seem to want it to be something else…

Exocet is not a monoplane, as it has cruciform wings (i.e. an X platform).

Actually you got the two mixed up, the Sidewinder is not really a monoplane as it is highly supersonic and basically relys on body lift at supersonic speeds. The aerodynamic surfaces are merely for stabilisation and to manouver the aircraft.
The Exocet uses wing generated lift to keep it airborne with a cruise engine to maintain speed… much like a much longer range cruise missile.

As far as the Bloodhound in service with the RAF, each Bloodhound had its own F700 aircraft log book, it was serviced by aircraft Technicians (Riggers, Sooties, Plumbers (and from 1987 onward Aircraft Fairies).

So if I keep a log book of my .22 rifles use it suddenly becomes a sniper rifle… because snipers keep log books too. :rolleyes:

Reusable aircraft like target drones and recon vehicles also have log books and who else would service them other than aircraft technicians? Doesn’t make them anything other than UAVs.

Now I never mentioned the term aircraft in the opening part of the thread, however if I do change the name, it will be to GROUND TO AIR PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT, which is a correct definition of this thread.

So Bloodhounds are not SAMs? Is that because they cost so much, or because they never actually hit anything?

As for the last line, do I have to take my RC model Aircraft back to the shop and complain that it should have been called an RC Model UAV and I think I should complain about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_airplane. I don’t think I will get very far.

A model aeroplane is no more an aeroplane than a model soldier is an actual soldier.

An aircraft does not to have a human crew in it as the original name for an aircraft without a pilot, was funnily enough a PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT.

So if aircraft means a craft that flys through the air… whether it has a human crew or not, then why is it necessary to add the word pilotless to the front of it? If aircraft don’t require a human crew then one would assume that aircraft would suffice for any craft that travels through the air. The reality is that aircraft is a craft that travels through the air to transport a human crew. Or is a pistol bullet an aircraft?

I think he has a bee in his bonnet about the fact that the only active air defence that his country’s armed forces have is shoulder launched SAM’s and the only fighter’s in the place are old Warbirds, My sympathies, a very bad idea on all counts.

You didn’t mention the fact that our shoulder launched SAMs are French Mistrals or the fact that the only current real threat to New Zealand is the US Navy.
Sure, it is a credible threat, Busche might decide Helen is not being hard enough of terrorism and decide to impose sanctions or invade, but not sure how a fleet of modern fighters or state of the art, long, medium range and short range SAMs would make any difference in such a situation.
Unless it is only the Penguins of the South Pole are planning something… Then some SAMs and a few long range fighters would be useful.

Of course we couldn’t afford F-15s, so we’d either have buy Flankers, or get a fighter with insufficient range to do a decent job. (And before you say it the Sky Hawks were crap. Based in the North Island they couldn’t even make it down to Dunedin for their farewell performance before they were retired. Dunedin was too far!!! …bloody useless.)

I’m told there was some technology exchange in the very early days and allegedly that was used by the US to block Bloodhound 2 exports.

As I noted, Thermal Batteries and Continuous-rod warhead. Photos of the two items attached. For details of how they worked, check the two following links:-

Continuous-rod warhead

Thermal Batteries

LOL Good luck there. He’ll keep on and on LONG after he’s had his a$$ handed to him.

I think he has a bee in his bonnet about the fact that the only active air defence that his country’s armed forces have is shoulder launched SAM’s and the only fighter’s in the place are old Warbirds, My sympathies, a very bad idea on all counts.

GarryB you have lost the argument, please STFU

LOL Good luck there. He’ll keep on and on LONG after he’s had his a$$ handed to him.

No, Bicycles were called bikes before motor bicycles existed.

Yes, I am being Obstinate… when have you ever heard of an Exocet being called a monoplane, or a biplane, or any sort of plane? How about a Sidewinder… or perhaps a Tomahawk? Without a human crew it is a rocket or a missile or an unmanned aerial vehicle.

A Tomahawk would be considered a monoplane as would any other single wing missile. Exocet and Sidewinder don’t use wings but fins. (Yes, there is a difference between a wing and a fin).

I think it was between 70-75, but i do know were, XXV SQD might be.
Phil.

The home of XXV (Fighter) Squadron’s HQ at the time by any chance 😀 (along with the Squadron’s ‘A’ Flight with Purple and Black Sections). Also home to a unit that had 431 in its title. 😮

Well, Well, a white RAF Mark 2 on a gloss green type 202 launcher, you don’t see many colour shots like that, I would say its missing an RAF Crest with Feriens Tego written on it however, and was taken between 1970 and 1983.

I think it was between 70-75, but i do know were, XXV SQD might be.
Phil.

Hi.
This is an interesting topic, anybody know were this unmanned monoplane
pic was taken. Not in this Country BTW 😀
Regards Phil.

Well, Well, a white RAF Mark 2 on a gloss green type 202 launcher, you don’t see many colour shots like that, I would say its missing an RAF Crest with Feriens Tego written on it however, and was taken between 1970 and 1983.

Hi.
This is an interesting topic, anybody know were this unmanned monoplane
pic was taken. Not in this Country BTW 😀
Regards Phil.

No, Bicycles were called bikes before motor bicycles existed.

Yes, I am being Obstinate… when have you ever heard of an Exocet being called a monoplane, or a biplane, or any sort of plane? How about a Sidewinder… or perhaps a Tomahawk? Without a human crew it is a rocket or a missile or an unmanned aerial vehicle.

Sidewinder is in fact a 5in rocket with a seeker head attached and I would not call it anything but a rocket. Exocet is not a monoplane, as it has cruciform wings (i.e. an X platform). As for Tomahawk, lets give it designation like the first missile ever deployed by the US Air Force, that was also a GLCM. The weapon’s name was Matador and its original designation in service was B-61A!! (like B for BOMBER), oh and it was a Monoplane as well. Bomarc’s original designation was XF-99 (as in F for Fighter) and the programs original goal was to produce a pilotless Interceptor AIRCRAFT!!!! as until 1955 the Bomarc was designated as a Ground-to-Air Pilotless Aircraft.

As far as the Bloodhound in service with the RAF, each Bloodhound had its own F700 aircraft log book, it was serviced by aircraft Technicians (Riggers, Sooties, Plumbers (and from 1987 onward Aircraft Fairies). Aircraft engineering practices were operated and as far as most of the blokes that worked on it were concerned it was an AIRCRAFT as it was built like an aircraft, it was fuelled with Avtur like an normal paraffin burner and its method of control when in flight was similar to that a conventional aircraft (as it was for Bomarc). Grounded Aircrew (usually after banging out one time too many) liked it as well as they were the only Fighter Squadrons (the Bloodhound Squadrons considered themselves to be fighter squadrons) that they could command and fight with if the time came.

Now I never mentioned the term aircraft in the opening part of the thread, however if I do change the name, it will be to GROUND TO AIR PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT, which is a correct definition of this thread.

As for the last line, do I have to take my RC model Aircraft back to the shop and complain that it should have been called an RC Model UAV and I think I should complain about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_airplane. I don’t think I will get very far.

An aircraft does not to have a human crew in it as the original name for an aircraft without a pilot, was funnily enough a PILOTLESS AIRCRAFT.

and anyway I would say that the Blue Envoy, which was the planned replacement for Bloodhound 1 had a very fine pair of Monoplane Wings.

GarryB you have lost the argument, please STFU

And isn’t ‘bike’ an abbreviation of ‘bicycle’? Isn’t the technically correct, if archaic, term ‘motor-bicycle’.

No, Bicycles were called bikes before motor bicycles existed.

so what is it then Garry a biplane? A triplane? It’s got one wing and uses it for lift. Lemme guess you’re going to call it a uni-plane just to be obstinate?

Yes, I am being Obstinate… when have you ever heard of an Exocet being called a monoplane, or a biplane, or any sort of plane? How about a Sidewinder… or perhaps a Tomahawk? Without a human crew it is a rocket or a missile or an unmanned aerial vehicle.

So a Motor bike with two wheels is a bicycle? It has a bicycle configuration, but it is a motorbike.

And isn’t ‘bike’ an abbreviation of ‘bicycle’? Isn’t the technically correct, if archaic, term ‘motor-bicycle’.

Just what I was about to write, sferrin!
If the RAF called it a monoplane, then (as an ex-serviceman) I also call it a monoplane.
After all, it has a main wing each side at the centre, a tailplane near the rear and dispenses with a fin (like the B-2).
However these pointless arguments can go on forever, so I’ll call a spade a spade and anyone else is free to call it a shovel!

so what is it then Garry a biplane? A triplane? :rolleyes: It’s got one wing and uses it for lift. Lemme guess you’re going to call it a uni-plane just to be obstinate? :rolleyes:

112 (Missile) Sqn originated at Woodhall Spa – I was there and one of the original members. IIRC the CO was a certain Sqn Ldr Middlebrook, the same surname as the author of WWII books, and I always wonder if he is one and the same. Of course we had the new improved Mk 2 Bloodhound.
We had the aforementioned T87 TIRs (initially in big wooden crates) and one of the first jobs was to lay ducting out for the cabling to the missile launchers. On the radar side we were all recent graduates from a year-long theoretical course at RAF Newton and didn’t take kindly to being employed as general labourers! Little did we know that hidden inside those crates was a whole year or so of putting large-scale Meccano bits together!
Talk about hands-on!

The term MONOPLANE actually means a single wing surface used as the primary source of lift. Hence the SU-37 is a MONOPLANE, as is the BLOODHOUND and the BOMARC.

So a Motor bike with two wheels is a bicycle? It has a bicycle configuration, but it is a motorbike.

End of subject as far as I concerned

Glad you are so open minded on the subject. :rolleyes:

Think what you like…

Do you mean a model or the real thing? 😀

Model unfortunately 😡

There is a small model of a site at the Thrope Camp visiors centre at Woodhall Spa, showing the layout of the 222 Squadron site there from 1960 -1964. (32 Airfix Bloodhound kits on that one)

The problem with doing the real thing is that there are only two sites in the UK where I know you could do it, Misson near Finningly and at Woolfox Lodge, next to the A1 between Wittering and Cottesmore (and the problem with Misson is that you would have to move a lot of ex army land rovers and other vehicles first). The other problem is that most of the equipment, bar some missiles and launchers where scrapped in 1963/64 (The majority of the missiles had the explosives, fuel and secret bits removed and were burnt on the airfield’s were the sites were located.).

A Standard RAF Bloodhound Mark 1 Air Defence Missile (ADM) Squadron (the term SAM Squadron not being used until 1962) consisted of Two Fire Units and a number of support facilities. Each Fire Unit consisted of a Launch Control Post building, a Work Services Building, Two Type 83 target Illuminating radars (made up of a Antenna Trailer and a Display cabin), 16 launchers and Launcher Plant Assemblies (LPA), plus cable and air pipe ducting.

The Launch Control Post (LCP) was the heart of the Fire Unit and was manned up a Launch Control officer and two operators. Each operator was responsible for the operation for one half of the Fire Unit, which was divided into two Sections. The sections were known by the manufacturer as A and B sections. The Equipment in the LCP consisted of the LCO’s control desk, the A and B Section operator control positions and a number of electronics racks that were used to prepare the missile for launch. The equipment racks were again separated into A and B sections and in the whole one section controlled one TIR and 8 Launchers to the right hand side of the fire unit and the other the TIR and 8 launchers to the left.

Each TIR, as noted was made up of two trailer mounted cabins. The antenna trailer contained the main radars. Note I say two as the Type 83 was made up of a pair of radar Transmitter / Receivers that both transmitted and received through the same parabolic dish assembly. The lower frequency (S-band) system was used to acquired the target (the lower frequency giving a wider field of view). After that system had acquired the target and locked on, the higher frequency (X-band) system would switch in to provide a much narrower field of view (Beam width in radar man speak), that was used for fine target tracking and target illumination for the missile(s).

An operator manned the display cabin, and he steered the radar onto the target under lamp order control form the Section operator in the LCP. When the radar had acquired the target. The radar operator would switch in auto tracking and just monitor the systems, until required to engage another target. The operator in the LCP, on command of the LCO, would run up the missiles on his section and carry out the required preparation for launch. Most of this was automatic and mainly consisted of tuning the missile’s radar receivers to match the frequency and Pulse Repartition Frequency of that section TIR. (Each TIR transmitted a different frequency and PRF to the TIR’s near it. This was used to ensure that each missile would home on the target that was being illuminated by its TIR, and not onto another target being illuminated by another section on the Squadron.

The 8 launchers were turned on to the firing bearing and the dish was steered to point at the target. (The launcher control system was fitted with equipment that stopped the missiles from being fired on certain bearings. These bearings were known as Taboo zones, and covered areas were you did not want the missiles spent boost motor casings to land. The LCP equipment would offset the launchers to an angle that would allow the dish on the missile to track the target during the missiles boost phase, when the missile was essentially a ballistic object.)

The missile was fitted with a twin channel radar receiver, one picking the radar transmitter pulse up on an aerial mounted at the rear of the missile and the other receiver was fed by from the dish at the front. The rear channel was locked in frequency and PRF to its TIR, and the forward dish was locked on to the target. When the missile was fully run up, the target was within the missiles fuel range, the Signal to Noise ratio on the forward channel was strong enough, and the dish control system was automatically tracking the target, The equipment in the LCP gave the operater the Free to Fire indication, and the fire button could be pressed.

When this happened, the ramjet igniters were fired and two seconds later the missile boosts were going as well and it was missile away. Each section could fire salvos of up to four missiles at one target at a time. The Work Services Building provided stand by power and pressurised air for missile electronics cooling. This air was piped to the launcher Plant assemblies for each launcher. The LPA cooled the air and feed it to the launcher and on to the missile. The LPA also provided pressurised hydraulics oil to the launcher and on to the missile to pressurise the missiles hydraulics system and provided oil pressure to run the missiles hydraulic motor generator that powered the missiles electronics. The launcher supported the missile and was turned by an electrical motor via a servo system linked to the equipment in the LCP. The other buildings on the site contained missile servicing equipment and bays, fuelling areas, explosive areas for fitting the warhead, ramjet igniter and boost motors, plus the usual admin and security buildings.

The layout of a Fire Unit is shown, plus a photo of the site at Misson (and one of the firing pads actually has a Bloodhound Mark 1 on It.) photo used with permission of site owner.

I’ve got photos of the LCP and WSB at Woolfox Lodge, that I will post at a later date.

Just something for anybody who would like to build their only little Bloodhound 1 Fire Unit (that was the name that was used by Bristol’s and the RAF for a Bloodhound Battery). A full Fire Unit was a couple of brick buildings (Launch Control Post and Works Services Building), 16 launchers and LPA’s, and two radars (a fire unit could engage 2 targets at the same time, and two FU’s made a Squadron, with the exception of 264 Squadron at North Coates who had 3, however they were never all operational at the same time). Find attached the dimensions and layout of the Type 83 Target Illuminating Radar. It was made up of two mobile wagons, one for the transmitter / receiver and aerial, and the other for display and control.

Do you mean a model or the real thing? 😀