dark light

dhfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 3,092 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The last RAF Open Cockpit Fighter? #1383773
    dhfan
    Participant

    According to Putnam, all Furys were withdrawn by 1939. As Webpilot said, Gauntlets were still in use for THUM flights well into the war years and 4 were still on charge for training in Nairobi, due to a shortage of Gladiators, in May 1943!

    in reply to: The last RAF Open Cockpit Fighter? #1384140
    dhfan
    Participant

    not the Stringbag cos it was FAA –

    TT

    Pot – kettle, etc. 🙂

    in reply to: The last RAF Open Cockpit Fighter? #1384147
    dhfan
    Participant

    Fighter I suspect you’re right with the Fury but.. you mentioned the Stringbag. The Duxford MKIII is painted as one of a few that served with the RAF.

    in reply to: The future ten years from now, extinct types resurfacing? #1385210
    dhfan
    Participant

    Not being an expert on Fairey Fireflies, and too idle to go to another room to look them up, aren’t the ARCo ones MkIs?

    in reply to: Round The Bend- What was Nevil Shute thinking of? #1386450
    dhfan
    Participant

    Wasn’t he actually one of the co-founders of Airspeed, after he left the Airship Guarantee Company (Vickers) following the R101 disaster and the end of the British airship programme? Think they sold out to DH around 1950?

    DH took a slice of Airspeed during the war and took them over completely in 1948. They were effectively just another DH factory from 1951.

    in reply to: Twin-engined tricycle undercarriage WWII fighter #1391875
    dhfan
    Participant

    That was the design weight and wing loading. I doubt if the project had been proceeded with it would have entered service at that weight.

    From the GA drawing, it looks a very thick wing section considering the design speed.
    I wonder what effect the props would have had on the cannon shells, they appear to pass very close to the airscrew disc.

    in reply to: Twin-engined tricycle undercarriage WWII fighter #1392425
    dhfan
    Participant

    Thinking back to Dave’s original query about the Supermarine Type 327.

    I am categorically NOT an aircraft designer and Supermarine had their fair share of extremely competent individuals, but… the wing doesn’t look big enough to me.

    It’s 4 ft more span than a Spitfire, but 5 ft less than a Hornet and about 12 ft less than a Mossie, and still has to lift the airframe weight, 2 Merlins and six 20mm cannon.

    Would have had an ‘interesting’ approach speed, I suspect.

    in reply to: Twin-engined tricycle undercarriage WWII fighter #1393040
    dhfan
    Participant

    Wow. 4 foot more wingspan than a Spitfire and twice the power!

    in reply to: Twin-engined tricycle undercarriage WWII fighter #1393047
    dhfan
    Participant

    With only 40 ft wingspan I suspect a pair of Merlins would be a trifle excessive.

    I didn’t cross-refer the specification number but I guess it was for the same requirement as the Whirlwind so Peregrines would be a good guess.

    in reply to: Twin-engined tricycle undercarriage WWII fighter #1393061
    dhfan
    Participant

    Supermarine type 327. Mock up stage only. 40 ft wingspan, 6 x 20mm cannon.

    dhfan
    Participant

    According to Yeager in the programme, the X-1 was built with conventional elevators. When he reached Mach 0.94, the elevators became completely ineffective. It was then that Ridley suggested using the adjustable tailplane for pitch control at high speed.
    I suppose this suggests that either the Miles data wasn’t available to the Bell designers, or they didn’t believe it.

    in reply to: Bournemouth Aviation Museum visit/pix #1393566
    dhfan
    Participant

    Thanks for the info Bruce. It must be a good 8 years ago I saw it. Nice to know my memory hasn’t completely failed.

    in reply to: Bournemouth Aviation Museum visit/pix #1393615
    dhfan
    Participant

    Thanks Ben.

    There’s another Vixen, on a stick, around there somewhere. I saw it a few years ago. The old Christchurch airfield perhaps.

    Having just typed the above I’m not sure now it was a Vixen. I shall consult Damien. 🙂

    dhfan
    Participant

    I don’t know enough about atomic development to be certain of details but the following should be somewhere near right.

    Somwhere around the beginning of the war, British scientists with assistance from European colleagues realised that an atomic bomb was more than theoretically possible, it should be practically possible too. Some research was begun but we had more pressing things to attend to and a shortage of manpower, resources and money.
    Churchill convinced Roosevelt of the importance of the project and the research, (and the British scientists), was transferred to America. After Pearl Harbour the project expanded massively with unlimited resources being made available to what became the Manhattan Project.

    Shortly after the end of the war a Bill was passed in America, I think the McMahon Act, which prohibited the sharing of nuclear information with any other nation, including us. After a degree of complaining to no avail, Attlee decided we should develop our own nuclear devices. Some knowledge came back with our scientists but it was almost as if we had to start again. I believe the biggest problem came with the design of the detonator.

    As I said, some of the details could be wrong but that should be a reasonably accurate summary.

    dhfan
    Participant

    Well, does it say it all?

    …apparent sudden acquisition of information on the construction of atomic weapons?

    What acquisition? Thanks to the McMahon Act (I think) despite our input to the Manhattan Project we were completely frozen out of research and had to develop our A and H bombs alone.
    From a quick google it was 1958 before the USA started sharing nuclear information with us again.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 3,092 total)