XN923Thanks for the correction Fedaykin et al. Always good to bust a myth or two.
It’s a shame the carriers are being hobbled but so is everything. I still haven’t heard how we propose to do maritime recon with Hercules. I hesitate to agree with Chox that the carriers are worthless – isn’t the point that once you have the capability with a small number of jets, you can always add to it? I presume that RAF F-35s will be carrier capable if needed?
I find it a surprising view that the Navy has always had the whip hand – I’ve been writing about historical naval aviation for six or seven years now and from what I have seen, the RAF has always tried to restrict the Navy’s ability to ‘do’ aviation. And often succeeded. Polaris was a very big ‘win’ for the Navy in that it stripped the RAF of the strategic deterrent, but realistically Skybolt was never going to work. Other than that, the entire period 1918-1937, the cancellation of CVA 01, the Hawker 1153 episode and now the scrapping of the Harrier fleet all put gave the RAF what it wanted at the expense of the Navy.
And when did we lose the ability to do military procurement in this country? I think I’ve traced it back to 1934 but I’ll happily take advances on that.
XN923Agreed. But in terms of direct and indirect influence on our politicians, it is the Navy which has always been in the driving seat.
Even when the RAF moved Australia on the maps to ‘prove’ they could operate anywhere in the world without needing carriers? I don’t recall the Navy being in the driving seat when CVA 01 was cancelled, or all the Type 82s which would have escorted them.
Truth is this government has made some poor decisions about defence across the board, trying to take money out but retain some capability in every area there was before. The real problem is the strategic nuclear deterrent – monumentally expensive and doesn’t deter anything. It’s always prevented the Navy developing a balanced conventional force in my opinion.
I’d have liked to see the carriers operating Tejas or Sea Gripen myself, we might have been able to afford more than half a dozen.
XN923That was quick! Well done – not obscure enough? The round is yours, sir.
XN923Thankyou
XN923Folkerts Monocoupe? Looks like an early production one to me
XN923Where I am having difficulties with some of the comments here containing the inference that Northrop used ideas from ‘captured German scientists’. In terms of the original post I made I’m talking about the Turbodyne B-35 – itself an offshoot of the B-35 that itself was ‘pre-developed’ from the N9M series of sub-scale models. A Mockup Board from Wright Field arrived at Hawthorn on 5 July 1942 to Inspect a full size wood mock-up of the center section and a portion of the left wing of the B-35, approval was given and manufacture of the XB-35 began at Hawthorne early in 1943.
Ah, our Germans are better than their Germans – they can travel back in time! I agree it’s a bit lazy to accuse Northrop of ripping off German ‘Luft ’46’ designs because a simple glance at the dates shows that Northrop had fully-developed flying wing designs years before captured German was available.
As far as your point about ‘inspiration’ is concerned, I think if this were the case it would be quite indistinct. However, Chadwick generally seemed happy to stick to mature technology unless there was a good reason not to – perhaps a look at some of the ‘Buck Rogers’ material at Northrop persuaded him that a quantum leap was called for. Looking at Chadwick’s evolutionary approach to past designs, I’m a little surprised that the Vulcan didn’t appear looking a lot more like a Short Sperrin!
Nevertheless, I still struggle with the notion that a delta could be in any way inspired by a tailless swept wing other than in a very loose way.
XN923At some point it’s going to need a mod to the leading edge of the wing, which would appear to be very costly and might ultimately lead to grounding.
What’s the LE mod for?
XN923You see, GrahamSimons… there is a large body of posters here that believe the Americans “borrowed” or stole everything from someone else… and anyone who suggests that the Americans had original ideas is treated with skepticism… and if you dare suggest a Brit got an idea from an American, you will be treated “less-than-gently”.
That’s a little unfair, not least as in my 21.55 post yesterday I wrote ‘Northrop developed his flying wing ideas independently of German experimental practices.’ It’s not surprising people think Northrop simply plundered German wartime design thinking – there was a lot of it going around, on both sides of the Atlantic. Northrop deserves full credit for the layout, and for the fact that his designs were ahead of their time – meaning fully safe and effective control was not possible in the 1940s and 1950s. And both British and German (and Russian) designers created practical, effective designs from this rash of paper projects, which is more than the Germans did. Though perhaps now I am being unfair…
Like the claim that the only way the Americans thought of the “all-flying-tail” modification for the X-1 in 1947 was because they had the blueprints for the Miles M.52… despite Curtis and NACA having tested an “all-flying-tail” on a modified P-40 (XP-42) in 1943… in both a wind tunnel and in actual flight.
That’s a touch unfair too – the Miles design linked the all-flying tail specifically to transonic flight, and the X-1 would not have exceeded Mach 1 without it. We don’t know where the idea to fit it to the X-1 (after it had already flown and been found to be uncontrollable in the transonic region) came from but it rankles with some that Bell had access to Miles design data while the US government stepped in and stopped Bell reciprocating. But this is now seriously off topic…
I suspect the ‘probe’ on the nose of the Northrop design is a pitot tube – a number of early jets mounted it on the nose.
XN923I feel you are in danger of starting a totally new thread which could run and run. :diablo:
Ah, do I need to add a smiley to show that I am joking? 😮
Mitchell was a hack.
Joking!!!
XN923Beautiful Sea Vixen panel Pagen!
Jack Ruskin, you must have a good supply of unobtanium from somewhere… I have it on good authority that it is what Harrier cockpits are made of.
XN923Seen her twice this year, at Abingdon and Yeovilton. It was amazing to see the formation flypast with the Sea Vixen. Shame about Lowestoft, but understandable. Looking forward to Bournemouth – there’s definitely a different quality to the display over water.
XN923A delta is different to a flying wing, not just structurally but also in the way that it works aerodynamically.
Quite right and this is why I very much doubt that the Vulcan owed anything conceptual to the Northrop designs. Perhaps Chadwick was sufficiently convinced that an equally ultra modern layout was worth trying, but the tailless swept wing and delta are very different beasts. I strongly suspect delta data came from Lippisch, while Northrop developed his flying wing ideas independently of German experimental practices. Tailless swept wings require twist and all manner of things like slots to make them controllable at low speed, and which are not conducive to high speed flight, while they need to be strong enough to resist twisting from all the control forces. Which makes it hard to get them thin enough for good transonic characteristics. Tailless swept wing was a nasty design dead end which killed too many test pilots, while delta was the future. Lippisch learned this the hard way and had moved away from tailless swept wing after the death trap commonly known as the Me163.
Furthermore I believe that the vestigal fuselage which gives the Vulcan a superficial resemblence to this Northrop sketch was added some time after Chadwick’s death.
Of course, R.J. Mitchell obviously copied the Heinkel He70’s wing when he designed the Spitfire…
XN923Has any film ever beaten ‘Wings’ (the 1927 film, not the admittedly brilliant BBC series) for brilliance of aerial action?
I’m including Hell’s Angels here – even though Wings didn’t use as many authentic WW1 aircraft, the Thomas-Morse MB-3s were pretty close and there were genuine Fokker DVIIs and SPADs. But what I’m referring to is the dogfight sequences filmed from some distance where an entire engagement can be seen on screen. At one point, for example, a formation of American aircraft and one of German aircraft approach head-on, whip past each other and the US aircraft (which were climbing) swerve round to engage from astern. I’m describing it badly and it’s literally a few seconds of footage, but it’s breathtaking, and totally and utterly real. These were genuine WW1 or early postwar pilots flying exactly as WW1 pilots flew in aircraft that were near-as-dammit.
What’s my point? Not entirely clear. You certainly couldn’t make a film the way Wings was made these days. But some of the opening few seconds of the Red Tails trailer reminded me of the sky-full-of-aircraft moments of Wings, only to blow it apart with some of the whiz-bang closeup stuff which simply does not permit the suspension of disbelief.
Had they perhaps been a bit less ambitious it might have worked better.
George Lucas et al seem to have forgotten that you it’s not always best to see something happening in close-up, hi-def, so-clear-you-can-count-the-rivets detail. Sometimes as a film maker you can suggest and let the audience fill in the gaps.
I’d rather see a smaller number of well-crafted shots involving real aircraft that you can see are real than lengthy sequences of whizzy cartoon.
XN923Kent Spitfire did a display at a show at Ibsley at 15:45 – could have been your second one?
Thanks, that sounds about right. Do you have a full list of displays? Couldn’t find an up to date list on the web.
XN923Warbird doing a very spirited aerobatic display somewhere roughly south of Fritham in the New Forest. My best guess from appearance, sound and performance was Sea Fury. This was about 3pm perhaps? Later heard another big piston doing aerobatics but couldn’t see it as I was in the trees by then.
Would love to know what aircraft these were and if there was a purpose behind the displays.
Sign In
