Bager1968While the Vampire project (DH.100) was originally named “Spider Crab”, was entirely a de Havilland project… Airspeed had nothing to do with the development of the Vampire.
If anything, you could say that it was a Gloster airframe design.
http://www.militaryairshows.co.uk/dhvampire.htm
The shape or design chosen was one similarly chosen and rejected by Gloster’s Chief Designer, George Carter, whilst working on the Glostor Whittle E.29/39 jet project earlier. Not favoured because of a lack of knowledge of how hot gases released as the jet efflux (exhausts) would effect the tail plane. The design chosen was similar to the American P.38, in the Vampires case the power unit was installed within the main fuselage near to the near to the rear and between the wings. The fuselage was cut short in order for a short jet pipe to be fitted to minimise power loss, with small ‘A’ shaped intakes one placed on each wing at the wing root.
The design incorporated the use of metal and the traditional wood mix used by De-Havilland consisting of a balsa wood core sandwiched by birch-ply going back to the number four bulkhead where the engine was attached making it very light with the metal being used to cover the engine, wings and boom’s plus tail plane.
Nick named the Spider Crab three prototypes were made with LZ/548G being the first to fly from Hatfield on 20th September, 1943, G.D.H. junior at the controls, the ‘G’ on the registration indicated the aircraft was guarded at all times on the ground. An initial order of 120 was made in May, 1944, for the now called Vampire F.MK.1 – later this order increased to 300.
Where Airspeed does enter the picture is with the DH.113 & .115 variants.
Perhaps the most interesting variant made was the DH.113 a private venture mixing the Mosquito night fighters nose and canopy onto an FB.MK5s airframe and fitting a Goblin three engine 3,350lb/st. This aircraft became a real cross-breed using the A1 MK.10 radar unit from the Meteor NF.11, it then became known as the Vampire-NF.MK.10 night fighter.
Flying for the first time registered G-5-2 on 28th August, 1949, and entering service with No.25 sqn., of the RAF in July, 1951. An export version was designated NF.MK54 used by Italy and India, and the training version used by the RAF was designated the NF(T)MK.10.
The T.11 started life much the same way as the DH.113 project, a private venture stemming from the Airspeed Division of De-Havilland at Christchurch. This site was bought by G.D.H in 1948 from the Airspeed Company.
An NF.10 was converted to make the prototype and under specification T.111 the radar along with two guns were removed, dual controls fitted and a Goblin 35, 3,500lb/st was installed. The aircraft was known as the DH.115 and registered, G-5-7/WW456, first flying on the 15th November, 1950.
Bager1968One may note the following:
1. We have seen just parts of these two technical summary reports; if we had seen the complete reports we may have had a different picture.
2. We have not seen any of the other reports; if we had seen some of the other reports we may have had a different picture.
1. Like the parts that tear down the ways in which Rafale and fail to meet requirements?
2. True.
It seems that what HAS been “leaked” was very carefully selected to show a very one-sided, incomplete, partial, and probably deceptive view of what the WHOLE report ACTUALLY said!
Bager1968I hope they don’t decide to “prettiefy” it with a repaint, I think historic aircraft look better with some patina.
Dave Morris, Curator of Aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm Museum answers the above statement.
Regarding the aircraft being repainted- absolutely not. ZD433 was specifically chosen by the Curator of Aircraft Dave Morris specifically because of the condition it is in.
This is in line with the Museum’s continuing policy of critically analysing all of our aircraft as per the Corsair and Martlet or, when an opportunity arises, to acquire a totally authentic aircraft straight from service (in this case almost straight from Theatre) and preserve it as a truly accurate reference object for all time.
The yard stick we often use is- what if we were lucky enough to discover a completely original Sopwith Camel in a French Barn, in exactly the same condition as it was last flown in 1918. Wouldn’t we consider ourselves very lucky !. One day ZD433 will be 100 years old too.
There is a time and a necessity for repainting, rebuilding and refurbishing, and Corsair and Martlet projects are not feasible or practical to apply to every aircraft. There are also instances when what is before you is already valuable for the condition it stands in and no further restoration treatments are necessary.
I hope that allays some of the fears that some people clearly have regarding how original ZD433 will be maintained.
Bager1968Thank you… that worked fine.
Interesting to note that the report has been released twice… I guess not enough people paid attention the first time.
Bager1968F-104s fail in indo-pakistani wars is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed. Strike aircraft being unsuited for air combat is not an opinion which could potentially be disputed.
Actually it was designed with two things in mind. Rapidly take off, fly high and intercept russian bomb trucks, or rapidly take off, sneak in and drop tactical nukes. It was not designed as a fighter, and the airforces which used it as such regreted it (quoting a retired F-104G HAF pilot when asked to comment on the unusally high accident rate of the F-104.)
This is utterly, completely wrong!!
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_1.html
The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was the result of an attempt to reverse the trend towards ever-increasing weight and complexity in fighter aircraft. When it first appeared in the mid-1950s, it had a futuristic look about it, and its small wing area and needle-nose earned it the appelation of “missile with a man in it”. The F-104 was the first operational interceptor capable of sustained speeds above Mach 2 and was the first aircraft ever to hold the World Speed and Altitude records simultaneously.
…..
The Starfighter had its origin in a November 1952 unsolicited proposal by Lockheed’s Clarence L. “Kelly” Johnson for a lightweight and relatively unsophisticated air-superiority fighter. Weight and complexity would be minimized in the pursuit of unmatched speed, altitude, and maneuverability. Johnson had visited Korea in December of 1951, and while there he had talked to fighter pilots then flying in combat over North Korea. He asked them what kind of fighter plane would be ideal. Their general consensus was that the trend toward ever-increasing weight and complexity had gotten completely out of hand, and they would gladly trade in their existing fighters for a lighter, less costly fighter with clearly superior speed, ceiling, climb rate, and maneuverability. Following his return to the USA, Johnson tried to convince Lockheed management that they should design a new type of fighter plane, one that was uncomplicated, lightweight, and inexpensive but one that would be able to outperform any other fighter in the world.
Even though the Air Force had no official requirement for such a fighter, Johnson was nevertheless authorized by Lockheed management to proceed with an initial private venture design.
The USAF then wrote a requirement for an air-superiority fighter around the Lockheed design!
On October 31, 1952, Johnson presented the CL-246 proposal to Lockheed management. They were enthusiastic, and gave him the go-ahead to present it to the Air Force. Even though the USAF did not have a standing requirement for such a fighter, the USAF thought sufficiently highly of the general idea that they issued a General Operational Requirement on December 12, 1952 for a lightweight air-superiority fighter to replace the North American F-100 in the Tactical Air Command beginning in 1956. However, in order to be completely fair, the USAF had to request competitive bids for the project from the aviation industry.
In response to the request for proposals, Republic submitted its Model AP-55, based on its XF-91 Thunderceptor, but with a solid rounded nose and NASA-developed flush-type engine air intakes. North American submitted its Model NA-212, which was an advanced version of the Super Sabre which eventually emerged as the F-107. Northrop submitted its Model N-102 Fang, a proposal for a J79-powered aircraft fed by a ventral, bifurcated air intake.
Lockheed’s head start was just too much for the competitors to overcome, and in January of 1953, Lockheed’s proposal was selected. On March 12, 1953 a letter contract for two prototypes was issued under Weapon System 303A (WS-303A). The designation XF-104 was assigned. Lockheed assigned the aircraft the company designation of Model 083-92-01.
The F-104 then ran into trouble because it couldn’t carry much ordnance (not being designed for anything more than a gun and A-A missiles)!
The F-104A had originally been scheduled to replace the F-100 Super Sabres of the TAC beginning in 1956. However, by the time that the F-104A was finally ready for delivery, Air Force requirements had changed. The Starfighter’s relatively low endurance and its lack of ability to carry a significant offensive weapons load made it no longer suitable for the TAC. Consequently the TAC lost all interest in the F-104A even before it was scheduled to enter service.
This might ordinarily have been the end of the line for the F-104A. However, delays in the delivery of the Convair F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2+ interceptor to the Air Defense Command had at that time become worrisome, and the USAF decided to go ahead and accept the F-104As originally destined for the TAC and assign them to the ADC as a stopgap measure. The selection of the F-104A for the ADC was sort of curious, since it had not been originally designed as an interceptor and it lacked an adequate endurance and had no all-weather capability. However, its high climb rate made it attractive to the ADC and it was hoped that the Starfighter could fill in until the F-106 became available.
The USAF then had Lockheed modify the design to fill the strike-fighter role.
The F-104C (Lockheed Model 483-04-05) was the tactical strike version of the Starfighter. It was designed to meet the needs of the Tactical Air Command (TAC), which had earlier found the F-104A to be unacceptable because of its low endurance and its inability to carry significant offensive payloads.
The choice of the F-104C by the TAC after it had found the F-104A to be unsuitable seems sort of odd, but the TAC felt that it needed a supersonic tactical strike fighter to fill the void between the forthcoming F-100C and the Mach 2-capable Republic F-105 Thunderchief. On March 2, 1956, a contract was approved for the initial procurement of 56 F-104Cs. The order was later increased to 77 when a second order for 21 more F-104Cs was approved on December 26, 1956. Planned orders for another 363 F-104Cs were later cancelled when the USAF terminated all of its Starfighter production plans.
Here are the sources for the article quoted above:
1. The Lockheed F-104G/CF-104, Gerhard Joos, Aircraft in Profile No. 131, Doubleday, 1969.
2. The World’s Great Interceptor Aircraft, Gallery Books, 1989.
3. Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, Steve Pace, Motorbooks International, 1992.
4. Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1987.
5. The American Fighter, Enzo Angelucci and Peter Bowers, Orion, 1987.
6. The World’s Fighting Planes, William Green, Doubleday 1968.
7. American Combat Planes, Ray Wagner, Third Enlarged Edition, Doubleday, 1982.
8. Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, John Fricker, Wings of Fame, Vol 2, Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1996.
9. E-mail from Tom Delashaw, correcting some errors.
10. Description of F-104C service in SEA from Mark Bovankovich and Tom Delashaw, The F-104 in SEA
Bager1968@PioneerThe French had the opportunity to be a part of Typhoon with us, but were not because of their arrogant attitude to the other partners, that’s their problem, and the onus to rectify that is upon them.
er, well, maybe also it had to do with the capabilities required (among others, a carrier capability that nobody else wanted to hear about)
besides, “problem” is a strange word as they got a cheaper fighter doing everything they need…
The specific statement from the British, Germans, and Italians when France asked about a carrier-capable version of the FEFA (predecessor to the EFA, which became Typhoon) was “You’ll have to pay for 100% of that yourself, and all work on that will have to wait until OUR version is completely developed and in production”.
And that isn’t the other FEFA partners having an “arrogant attitude” towards the French?
So the answer is, simply, that the French were told by the other partners that they were on their own developing a replacement for the F-8E(FN), so it only made sense for the French to pull out of FEFA and spend all their money on one program. The remaining partners restructured the consortium and proceeded with EFA/Typhoon.
Now the French demands for an excessive share of the FEFA work-share pie, that IS French arrogance.
It seems that there was plenty of ego-thumping and arrogance all around in the early days of the FEFA program.
There is nothing to “rectify”… the French have Rafale, the rest have Typhoon, and the French and the others have been working together just fine on A400M and other such projects, now haven’t they?
Your statement appears to be very prejudiced from the outset,
And yours appears “very prejudiced” against France “from the onset”.
you seem to imply that when Britain works with the Americans it has lost out, whereas when it works with Europe it is an important partner or has gained something, which IMO must be clouding your conclusions.
THis attitude is actually easy to see, since Britain, simply by virtue of GDP and military size, would always be the “junior partner”/subordinate to the US in any joint program, and would always be secondary in consideration of requirements and industrial share.
However, they are a full equal to France, Germany, Italy, or Spain in any European project, and thus the requirements of the UK, in both specification and industrial share, will be heard and delivered upon equally with the other nations’ requirements.
Bager1968I know it gets repetitive but the 262 didn’t have swept wings for aerodynamic reasons, it was because the original engines were replaced and the c of G moved, a quick fix was to sweep the wings back – not design genius, just luck
Exactly… the initial use for everybody was for CG/control reasons (the Northrop XP-56 had them swept to put the aileron/elevator combo far enough behind the CG to give sufficient control authority).
It was during flight testing and wind-tunnel work that the other benefits, including delaying compressibility effects, were noted… by all those developing swept-wing aircraft, not just the Germans.
It is true that North American combined the previous US work with the captured German information to design the high-speed swept wing of the F-86 Sabre, but there was a considerable body of data and design work from the US in that mix, not just German stuff.
Bager1968That story seems to have been deleted… the link comes up with a story about Vietnam, with nothing whatsoever about a report from or about Japan save for a one-line mention of a “Japanese-sponsored report” which is neither discussed nor referenced in any way.
Bager1968This article goes into more detail.
http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/AgustaWestland-lands-250m-Ministry-Defence/story-15176588-detail/story.html
Yeovil’s biggest employer has secured a new contract with the Ministry of Defence worth a quarter of a billion pounds, the Western Gazette can exclusively reveal.
AgustaWestland, which employs around 3,600 UK workers, has won a £250-million contract to provide the support and training for a new fleet of Army and Navy Lynx Wildcat helicopters over the next five years, according to sources.
…..
This new deal will result in AgustaWestland staff training the military pilots who will use the new helicopters.
The company is also working on a MoD contract to build a new £76-million training centre for the helicopters which will be located at RNAS Yeovilton, alongside Royal Navy and British Army AW159 Lynx Wildcat squadron.
The state-of-the-art facility will incorporate two full mission simulators, a flight training device and cockpit procedures trainer.
Training courses for the Army are due to commence at the centre from January 2013, and for the Navy in the following year.
Bager1968Yes its fairly clear that rapid development of US post war jets owed a lot to German designs and technology.
I hardly think the American were alone in using German research. How do you thing the Soviets built the MiG-15?
A better question is why did it take so long for the UK to adopt swept wings?
You completely missed the sarcasm in his post.
This is demonstrated by the other sentence of his post:
For example things like swept wing designs date back to mid war aircraft and used in such aircraft as the Sabre.
Mike E
The US flew several swept-wing designs during the war… some flying before the first sight of the ME-262 by Allied pilots.
The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender had a swept wing, and first flew on 2 December 1941 (wind tunnel tests on models had been underway since 1940).
The Northrop XP-56 also featured a swept wing, and first flew on 30 September 1943.
So the US was already doing swept wings long before seeing any German test data… hence the sarcasm.
And don’t forget the fitting on the XP-42 of an “all-flying” horizontal stabilizer in 1942, which was then tested in both a wind tunnel and in actual flight… years before the US ever saw the Miles M.52 data.
Bager1968Sigh… a very misleading headline, as the text of the story just below that headline describes the actual situation…
There is NO actual dredging going on… the rig will drill a series of holes to provide final data for developing the dredging plan.
Actual dredging will only start in 2014!
Bager1968UK. to buy a new Boeing C-17 military transport plane.
Back at the very start of the UK C-17 saga the MOD allocated 10 serial numbers for C-17s… and are now up to #8 actually purchased/ordered/announced.
Will we see #9 & #10 in the next year?
Bager1968Let’s give her the dignity of speaking her name, shall we?
Florence Green, last WW1 veteran, dies
Published: Feb. 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM
KINGS LYNN, England, Feb. 7 (UPI) — Florence Green, a veteran of the Women’s Royal Air Force and the last living veteran of World War I, died at the age of 110 in an English nursing home.
Green died in her sleep during the weekend, the Norfolk Eastern Daily Press reported.
While she became the last survivor of the millions who served in the war, Green was only identified as a veteran in 2008, the newspaper said. A gerontology researcher discovered her service records, which were under her maiden name, Patterson.
“She would never blow her own trumpet and certainly wouldn’t shout about the fact she was the last veteran,” June Evetts, at 76 the youngest of her three children, said.
Green enlisted at the age of 17 in 1918 and worked as a waitress in the officer’s mess at RAF Marham.
The base, home to wooden biplanes during World War I, now houses supersonic Tornadoes, which have seen service in Afghanistan.
Green said she enjoyed her work but discovered when a pilot took her up for a spin that she was afraid of flying.
In her last years, Green lived with her older daughter in Kings Lynn until moving to the nursing home just before Christmas. RAF Squadron Leader Paula Wilmott said a delegation from Marham had been planning to visit Green this Friday with a cake for her upcoming 111th birthday.
Bager1968“No one is saying there has been no impact.” :rolleyes:
This article would be more credible if the issues delaying the F-35 really were avionics / software related. The majority of them are flight-test issues and hardware design problems. I don’t think the powerpack redesign, the tailhook issue, the roll-off, cracking bulkhead, failure to meet acceleration KPPs, or the rest of the litany of bugs uncovered in flight-test have anything to do with Chinese hacking.
However, software development is AT LEAST a full stage behind schedule as well… and I wouldn’t rule out hardware changes to address the “Chinese hacking” issue either.
Things like changing frequencies, interface methods, etc affect hardware as much as software.
Bager1968For the “5 squadron item”, see the first paragraph here: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/HomePage.aspx
For the squadron numbers, see these lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Air_Force_aircraft_squadrons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Squadrons_of_the_Air_National_Guard
I forgot the two A-10 USAFR squadrons:
# 442d Fighter Wing, (A-10) Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri
# 476th Fighter Group, (A-10/OA-10) Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.
Therefore there are 7 A-10, 1 OA-10, and 1 combined A-10/OA-10 squadron, of which 5 A-10 squadrons are to be retired or reclassified. .
Sign In
