>sarcasm on<
Yes, absolutely!!

We must never start a thread about something that has ever already been discussed… mentioned in passing… or even just thought about on this forum!!

We only want fresh, new topics… anyone who missed out on the discussion the first time is just “Sh*t out of Luck”… and we will be insulting and rude to them if they dare break this narrowminded protocol, won’t we??
>sarcasm off<

Sklaucn, your thread is welcome by some of us, and we are happy to re-hash old topics with new people… after all, they just might have either a new point of view on it, or new (previously un-posted) information that we don’t!

Keep on asking, so we all can learn and enjoy together!

There WAS a big problem with dimensions in the J79>Spey swap… the Spey’s 37.5″ diameter is for the main body (not the reheat unit), while the oft-quoted 38.3″ for the J79 is for the afterburner (reheat module) only! The diameter of the J79’s main body is only 30.3″… look at photos of both engines with their reheat units attached and you can see this clearly.

Yes, the mass flow would be greater, requiring a redesign of the intakes, but I doubt that that would be nearly as hard as redesigning both the intakes and the entire engine area of the fuselage to fit what was actually a considerably larger diameter engine body!

Also, the supersonic Sea Vixen would already actually be a completely different design… thinner, reshaped wing for supersonic flow… redesigned aft fuselage to take the greater stresses of a reheated Avon (or Spey)… reshaped nose and tailplane (also for supersonic flight), so redesigning the intakes would also be on the schedule, to allow for the greater mass flow of a reheated Avon as well as the changes in airflow at supersonic speeds.

Fitting the Spey into the “Super Sea Vixen” would be child’s play if it was done in the design phase.

I do agree that the Lightning would pose a bit more difficulty, with the circular intake being either enlarged to a greater diameter or reshaped completely.

Since it would be desired to fit a larger diameter (and more powerful) radar antennae to meet the needs of a multi-role aircraft (if this is instead of the Phantom), then the nose might even be changed to a side-intake type. Whether this is reasonable or not is debatable… just remember that the Chinese actually did this with a cloned Soviet type in the 1980s, so surely the Brits could do it in the early-mid 1960s!

Thanks.

The one in 1986 might have been this one, but it did not have the wing-mounted radome on then.

Since the engine and cowling were removed for the repairs, I might have confused the type, but the article in the base paper called it a “-1D”. [You know reporters, though… even supposedly aircraft-familiarized ones]

I was only in the hangar a couple of times, and rarely used the base’s main gate after it was placed for display, so I don’t remember getting a close look after it was completed.

The squadron that finished (and marked) it was VMFA 531, then flying F/A-18s. They were formed in 1943 as VMF(N)-531, the first USMC night fighter squadron.

As -121 didn’t fly the night-equipped Corsairs, it is more appropriate for this -5P to carry -531 markings (if it still does). I still grumble though, as all the publicity on it being restored by a USMC squadron only mentioned -531 and -121 not at all!

And what about the Turkish-built 295 that crashed there?

I like her this way!!

While I normally prefer flying restorations, then good static restorations, there is just something so very “right” about the way they have done this display!

This museum has my great respect, and appreciation for this wonderful job, which captures both the essence of this plane’s service and the passing of time that has made such artifacts into much more than “just old airplanes”!

Here is the text of the Conway’s article.
Note that they do state that the PA-58 would have 75m catapults… I guess the artist didn’t read the text!

In 1958, while Clemenceau and Foch were still under construction, a third carrier was approved. The PA 58 design was larger and heavier, and although it bore a superficial resemblance to PA 54, was clearly influenced by the new ‘super carriers’ built by the US Navy. The shape of the flight deck, which was given considerable overhang on either side amidships, enabled the island to be positioned farther outboard. Parking space amidships was thereby increased, and the 200m hangar was positioned centrally. Two deck-edge lifts, each 17m x 14m, were sited forward and aft of the island to starboard. The length of the catapults was increased to about 75m so that larger aircraft could be handled. They were, however, positioned in the same way as those on Clemenceau so that there was a clear separation between flying operations, which were confined to the port side of the ship, and parking and handling operations. The angled deck measured 192m and was angled at 8° as on Clemenceau.
The significant increase in power needed to sustain fleet speed led to a corresponding increase in the number of shafts from two to four. Protection of flight deck and machinery was on a similar pattern to Clemenceau, but the thickness of the armour was slightly increased.
The eight single 100mm of Clemenceau were to be retained but, in addition, it was planned to fit a twin launcher for the new Masurca SAMs on either side of the flight deck aft (as in the US Navy’s Kitty Hawk).
In addition to Alize ASW aircraft and Etendard fighter-bombers, PA 58 was to operate Mirage IVM heavy strike aircraft. The latter, under development for the Navy since 1956, had a length of 19m, a wing-span of 12m, and a take-off weight of 20t.
PA 58, possibly to be named Verdun, was delayed by financial problems, and the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurca before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.

I have scanned the drawing fron Conway’s here:
http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/misc%20ships/?action=view&current=PA-58Verdun.gif

I will copy & post the text from Conway’s Tuesday evening, as I don’t have a good copy myself… but can get it from the Library.

The ship was actually authorized (1958), but never started due to budget shortfalls.

It would have been just barely larger than the USN’s modified Essex CVs, but it would have been a better ship, being designed with the angle deck & deck-edge elevators, rather than modified for them.