ChoxClose-up photos in my Hunter book (Crecy Publishing) are of the F1 at Newark. Shows locks fitted and also shows cannon muzzles… if that’s any help. It’s the biggest and most detailed Hunter book available at present and it includes plenty of stuff for model builders (and no I’m not on commission!).
ChoxThere’s a substantial new book on the Lightning from Ian Allan, due out in July which contains a big selection of colour images plus plans, detail diagrams etc.
ChoxMaybe it’s just the way it’s written which is a bit misleading. It does make it sound as if the tanker-capable aircraft were somehow substantially different but of course they weren’t. Much like the Vulcan tankers in fact, only difference being that the Vulcans were retro-fitted rather than being tanker-capable from the start.
Aviation websites which provide historical/technical information can be a bit dodgy. Dunno why but some people seem to imagine that just because there’s a lot of text and some pretty pictures it must all be technically and factually correct but of course they’re simply lifting material out of books – sometimes not as carefully as they might!
ChoxThe Sperrin was such an early part of the story that it was named before the idea of giving them all a “V” was thought-up. One assumes that it would have remained as Sperrin. However, the Sperrin was never really part of the V-Force plan, it was very much a part of the development process and it was obsolete before it was even finished!
It was indeed very much a “jet-powered” Sunderland in some respects – just look at that tail fin! Fascinating aircraft though but definitely a good thing that it never had to enter service. Mind you, it would probably have made a very decent tanker!
As for the Valiant, it depends how you look at it. Some of the aircraft were indeed destined to become tankers but it’s probably a bit misleading to suggest that they were specifically designed as such. In reality, no such aircraft are created as tankers – it’s more a case of re-manufacturing parts of the airframe to suit the role, that’s all. The Valiant was very much a bomber in all respects, much like the Victor tanker was – until it got meddled with! Of course the Victor could arguably be described as more of a “role-specific” tanker as the Mk.2 was fully equipped as a three-point tanker whereas the Valiant was only a fairly simple single-point machine, like the Vulcan that came along much later. It’s interesting to note that a design plan was made to manufacture Vulcan Mk1’s as three-point tankers but at the time no requirement existed. The drawings certianly exist though.
Choxthe Valiant as far as I know was the only jet bomber at that time which had a specifically designed tanker variant rather than the usual conversion.
I guess that depends what you mean by a “specifically designed” version. Certainly, Avro did draw up a tanker version of the Vulcan B1 which was never pursued.
ChoxAs has been mentioned, the reason why 818 survived was not through any passion for historical preservation (some hopes!) but because the aircraft was retained by Vickers (BAC) for some years. It lingered on because of the Review at Abingdon and it was more by accident rather than design that it then went to Marham. The fact that it survived for so long at Marham is a minor miracle, considering the state of the Victor which they now have there!
It’s true that the Valiant does sometimes get regarded as a sort of “Cinderella” with all the glory going to the Vulcan and Victor. Having written books on the subject, I should say that in my V-Bombers book (Haynes/PSL) I did say that despite the reasons why we ended-up with three V-Bomber types (four, technically-speaking), the RAF’s needs could have been comfortably met with just one – the Valiant B2. But of course that is with the benefit of hindsight and it’s difficult to see how the V-Bomber story could have been any different, given the circumstances at the time.
It would be wrong to assume that the Mk.1 Valiant would have ever out-lived or out-performed the Vulcan or Victor. It was an excellent design which “did what it said on the tin” but even without the metal fatigue problems, the aircraft wouldn’t have been around for many more years in any case.
In essence, the Valiant Mk1 was a very useful and valuable aircraft which came along at the right time. It’s service life was cut short but not by a hugely significant amount. The Valiant Mk2 would probably have been an ideal low level bomber for the RAF but time and circumstances dictated that it simply wasn’t a possibility at the times when its potential value might have been recognised more clearly.
The Victor was undoubtedly the most complex of the V-Bombers and – at least in technical terms – the best performer. However there’s no doubt that the Vulcan was by far the most successful of the designs and certainly the most versatile. As for the Sperrin, well, let’s no got there!
ChoxIt has also emerged that Fry was asked to come up with alternative names for squadron leader Guy Gibson’s dog, Nigger, but that executive producer Sir David Frost rejected them all.
“Guy sometimes used to call his dog ‘Nigsy’, so I think that’s what we will call it,” Sir David told the Daily Mail newspaper. “Stephen has been coming up with other names, but this is the one I want.”
Made me smile! Here we go again…
I’m surprised that Stephen Fry didn’t insist that the dog was called Nigger like it always was called. Presumably if it had been called Fag then the movie-makers wouldn’t have hesitated for a second with their historical accuracy:rolleyes:
ChoxProblem is that even regardless of variations in tone (whether caused by film or lighting) there’s not much difference between red and black so it’s a hard one to call. I can’t work-out where the assumption that the checks are red has come from. You’d imagine that there was some “definitive” reason, but I get the feeling that someone has just assumed they were red and the notion has just been carried-on.
ChoxIt’s a real headache. The second photo would suggest that the checks were red, as they match the tone of the roundel centre. On the first photo, it’s far fom certain as they still look black, but on the wing underside they match the tone of the roundel centre which suggests that they were red. The conclusive factor would be to see if the tones match the red of the rudder’s insignia but the photograph is perfectly positioned so you can’t see that bit!
The other slight worry is that there appears to have been a Pup around at the same time, marker very similarly. I haven’t looked into this but it appears that the checks on that machine were black/
white and it makes me wonder if there was any connection between the two aircraft in that there may have been some “fashion” at the time for black/white checks?
Guess the only way to solve this problem is if any other pictures of the aircraft exist. I’m told that they do but heaven-knows where.
ChoxThat’s an interesting subject – I’ve never been entirely convinced about the roundel colour business and I guess a great deal of assumption must have been based on the examination of photos which vary in tone for the reasons mentioned. Mind you, the roundels are the least of my worries – I’d be happy to get a definitive answer on the check colours!
ChoxThink you might be right – it was only recently that someone mentioned that the red might actually be black, and it seems to have been accepted wisdom that it was red all along. Hope so anyways!
ChoxHmm, so I guess we should also assume that the roundel blue was darker (ie standard shade) that the second photo suggests, or is the first photo more misleading?! Guess my question here is whether aircraft from that era had standard blue roundels or a paler shade?
I read somewhere that the red (black?!) checks were subsequently extended to the upper wing lower surfaces and that photos exist – any ideas where?
I suppose the conclusive answer to this colours riddle would be if anyone had any idea why the aircraft was decorated in such a fashion – presumably it must have related to something with red or black/white checks within the unit otherwise I don’t see why such a scheme would have been chosen at random?
ChoxWell I don’t about a “definitive paper” but I was hoping to produce a major book on the subject this year, and hopefully clarify things as best I could. Unfortunately the publisher has had a change of heart and they’ve dropped the idea now – along with the “Aerofax” book which was what started-off the plan in the first place. I believe this book is still advertised on Amazon etc., but it doesn’t exist and never will sadly. We’ve drifted-off onto other more successful EE designs!
As for Mountbatten, as I said some time back, that tale is another glorious red herring. The Aussies pulled-out of TSR2 because America gave them a better offer. Simple as that, as the papers in the Australian Public Records Office confirm. Just one of many TSR2 conspiracies which gets thrown-around but actually have no basis in fact.
Resmoroh, you’re right that the costs are indeed chicken feed, but that’s only when compared to modern standards. At the time it clearly was showing promise of costing way more than the government could justify. Naturally, with the benefit of hindisght, and knowing how little the aircraft would have cost when compared to later aircraft, and when we now know how much F-111 cost, it would have been sensible to have stuck with TSR2. But, like poor ol’ Duncan Sandys who also gets the blame for so many crimes, neither he or the government had the luxury of a crystal ball!
ChoxBAC did propose that both airworthy prototypes should be retained for trials/development work but after due consideration, the powers that be decided that they didn’t want to provide the funding. Some have suggested that this was another example of polticial motivation to destroy every trace of the aircraft but it was probably more a case of BAC trying to cling-on to a reduced test programme for purely monetary reasons.
As for the undercarriage it did cause problems and it clearly didn’t behave precisely as predicted, but I’ve never seen anything to indicate that the gear was regarded as a long-term problem. It was presumably destined for modification and refinement as part of the development programme. You could level similar criticisms at the air brakes as they didn’t work as advertised either, but they were also not regarded as a potential problem. You have to bear in mind that the test programme had barely begun and no doubt many alterations and refinements would have been made. With regard to the undercarriage it’s perhaps worth noting that the extendable nose wheel leg had – for example – been effectively dropped by the time of cancellation as the aircraft had already exhibited very effective tailplane authority which meant that there was no need to push the nose high with the landing gear for short take-off runs.
ChoxYes, that account on Airscene describes the story fairly well although even then, Beamont comments:-
“The Americans were developing very fast – they had got an aeroplane in this particular role, the F-111, coming along fast and no way were they going to be zapped by the British as they had been with the Canberra – this was very apparent…”
It’s obviously a throw-away comment but it just doesn’t add-up. How would they be “zapped” and by whom? Where did Beamont suppose that they were going to sell the TSR2? Where did he think they were going to sell F-111? It’s quite absurd.
Sign In
