XN923Looks like a small budget indy film. I doubt therefore CGI will be involved, which will keep this thread quiet 😉
The nose photo featured on their website is quite a famous shot, is it not? They used it on the World at War iirc.
I would have thought a low budget would have meant CGI was more likely than less – much cheaper than miniatures, for example.
I’d be interested to see the results though.
XN923Well that’s knocked any chance of my wife ever coming to an airshow with me on the head!
Not because of the safety issues, just because she knows darn well I would be wandering round with a stupid grin on my face at all the boys’ toys, like a much less good looking version of Harry.
When was the display footage filmed? Legends?
XN923mythical Roc
Not exactly an urban myth, but one of those stories that seems promising and then the trail goes cold.
While researching for a book I obtained some recordings from Orkney Radio circa 1987, one of which involved an interview with a diver who claimed to have located a Blackburn Roc in the sea, in remarkably good condition. He didn’t want to divulge the exact location for fear of souvenir hunters stripping it, but there was talk of it being raised and exhibited in the museum.
The Roc was fairly easily identifiable – it was most probably a target tug from one of the Fleet Requirements units operating from Hatston or Twatt in 1943 (in fact I think there was only one Roc that went down in the sea in that period but the identity escapes me at the moment) so the story was credible. If true it would be the only existing Roc, albeit probably without its turret. It was mentioned again, in another interview with RN Observer Douglas Haskey, but I’ve been unable to locate any further reference to it.
XN923I too had vague memories that a plastic Spitfire had been mooted, and possibly even created, but a look in the book where I thought I had seen it has revealed nothing so far… I think as Carpetbagger has mentioned it was produced to save strategic materials but in the end was not needed. One fuselage might have been produced for structural testing, but beyond that I don’t know. Pretty certain it never flew.
…Besides, ‘composite’ can mean quite a number of things. I wonder if they had the technology in the war to do things like fuselages and wings in plastics??
(Would it have been painted with little tins of Humbrol enamel and had the pilot glued in I wonder?)
XN923Yes, of course. They don’t paint it over :rolleyes:
Funny, it was painting it over that protected the original paint on the Fleet Air Arm Museum’s Corsair wasn’t it?
I think they had a bit of a job getting the ‘new’ coat off again though… 😮
Seriously though, what a fantastic thought – the original paint! Long may it adhere.
XN923To see a Tempest flying alongside the Mustangs and the Spits would be amazing. Now, can we also get a Typhoon for a formation display? 😀
Would be lovely alright – but I suspect the difference between getting a Centaurus into running/flying condition and doing the same for a Sabre would be somewhat different. Is there a running Sabre anywhere in the world?
XN923It would be good to see this significant and underrated aircraft restored to its former glory in the not too distant future. How much of the aircraft does the museum have?
BTW at the risk of hi-jacking the thread, if anyone knows anyone who worked or flew on Barracudas, could they PM me? Thanks.
XN923At the risk of offending our antipodean cousins, might I suggest the Commonwealth CA15 Kangaroo? Whilst not wanting to do down the Australian aircraft industry, which became very strong, very quickly, it had until that time basically licence built fairly straightforward designs or produced modifications of existing designs. The CA15 it seems was up there with the best immediately-postwar piston engined fighters such as the Sea Fury and P-51H, and probably better than the likes of the Spiteful.
XN923Thanks for posting that. I was sorry to hear about Filmer’s passing, but he had obviously had a very full and long life. My condolences to his family and friends.
He was a thoroughly charming gentleman who helped me a great deal with my Skua book, and was obviously a talented pilot and a fearless dive bomber. What a waste for the Allies that he and half his squadron were stuck in prison camps for the greater part of the war. It was a privilege to talk about the Norwegian campaign with him and I am saddened that his contributions to the book will be published posthumously.
He was also known as ‘Kik’, though I don’t know why.
RIP
XN923Let’s give F1 a bit of a head start and look at the Mercedes W196 Grand Prix car of 1956. This used a state of the art powerplant with desmodromic valves and the car wiped the floor with allcomers that season and the next. It was a normally aspirated straight-8 and produced 257bhp from a capacity of just under 2.5 litres. Conveniently, 2006 F1 regs have gone to a 2.4 litre engine which is pretty good for comparison. The 2006 Toyota allegedly offered 740bhp from its V8 engine – and that is on everyday unleaded unlike the ’56 Mercedes.
Given this I’d say that a clean-sheet design from an F1 stable with money pretty much no object could probably produce a great deal more power than the current crop of Reno racers manage. They’ve done well to just about double the power of their 1940s and 1950s powerplants and in many cases I don’t doubt that they have many new trick bits that would have amazed their original designers. But I strongly suspect that if an Ilmor or a Cosworth put their mind to it (and gave Dowty-Rotol a call for a new design prop) we would be seeing at least 5,000bhp, and delivered at a useful torque rating as well.
XN923Interesting thread. Its a little early for the date range but it got me wondering how a land based version of the S6B would fair without the huge drag inducing floats and retractable undercart fitted. The engine would probably have to be tweaked for modern fuels and fit a smaller multi bladed prop for the required ground clearance.
Martin
I’d like to know where there is room on an S6B to retract the undercarriage into! It’s actually a very small aeroplane (the floats give it the impression if being bigger than it is) and the wings were literally full of radiator. The whole thing was designed to have the lowest possible frontal area so it was all tucked behind the engine and pilot. I’ve no doubt it would be very fast (it did 400mph+ in 1930 with floats and the technology available then) even with fixed landplane u/c. I think the ‘R’ engine had similar dimensions to a Griffon, so fit one of the race spec ones with contraprops and watch the thing break a slew of records or shake itself to pieces or both. Not sure how you would keep it cool though.
In answer to an earlier question, there was more-or-less a Sabre powered Sea Fury, as one of the Tempest prototypes (MkIII and MkIV) used a Griffon and a Sabre during its development and became the Fury prototype – it was very attractive and the fastest of the Hawker fighters, I think it was clocked at 483mph. A Sabre with some of the modern developments in one of the race-spec Sea Fury airframes would be… interesting.
BTW Winkle Brown wrote a few fairly disparaging things about the Seafang in ‘Wings on My Sleeve’ to the effect that despite a lot of work it couldn’t be made satisfactory as a carrier aircraft. I looked for my copy to try and find the reference but couldn’t locate it (no big surprise there).
XN923OK, can’t ignore this one.
Blackburn Skua
Blackburn Roc
Fairey Barracuda
Blackburn Dart*
Sopwith Cuckoo*
Blackburn Shark*
Blackburn Firebrand
Westland Wyvern S.4**
DH Sea Hornet
Avro Bison
*Not 100% sure these no longer exist, but I sincerely doubt they do
**There is an extant Wyvern, but it is the TF1 model, rather different to the one that entered service
You mayhave noticed that these are all British naval types, and it’s shameful that so many don’t exist any more. I’m not counting the Skua in the fjord as ‘extant’ but will happily do so when it is raised and I can visit it. The last is just to show the ridiculous machinery the FAA was saddled with between the wars and as arguably the ugliest aircraft ever.
XN923Did you fly over Goudhurst in Kent by any chance? I was sitting by the roadside (with a few million others) waiting for the Tour de France to come by and saw a couple of warbirds fly over. The nearer was obviously a Harvard (in USAAF markings by the looks of things) but the other was too far away to ID.
Great pics, better than my TdF ones!
XN923I hear that the World War Two bomber that was found on the moon (as reported by the Sunday Sport) will finally be completing its journey to Duxford.
XN923Does that mean he’s got the search and finding bit covered but not the recovery? I know that the Bodo museum has been mentioned but it’s 240 meters and that’s not a walk in the park for divers. Looking at the He111 and Ju88 recovery they just fired bolts into the airframes but this aircraft looks more than a little bent. It could just fall appart on the way up. 240 meters isn’t too much of a depth for a saturation dive team but that would be seriously expensive. With a partial pressure of 1.4 of O2 at that depth it would still be .056% (A hypoxic mix) and the decompression overhead would be horrendous but even then you would still have to carry transport gasses. SCUBA Divers have exceeded this depth on open circuit equipment but would they be able to do anything when down there. It would probably have to all be done very carefully but with an ROV and hope it doesn’t fall to bits on the way up.
Did any of the Barracudas ditch during the attack?
Mark
No idea re recovery – I dare say they are looking at the options. NLM seem hopeful of bringing it to the surface but as you say, the key is money. L2940 was brought to the surface OK but was I suspect a lot less deep and was a lot more damaged. I suppose we will just have to watch this space. They have a number of people who are very experienced at bringing wrecks to the surface I believe.
Re Barras, I think they were shot down rather than force landing, but will check
Sign In
