Putting my whif gallery online

MartG · November 02, 2010, 04:38:51 PM

Just to let you good folk know I'm in the process of putting a gallery of my whifs online - the URL is http://homepages.tesco.net/martin.goldsack/whatif.htm . I.ve got some uploaded already, and I'm slowly adding more.

philp · November 02, 2010, 11:11:55 PM

Nice.

Got a thing for Vigilantes?

rickshaw · November 04, 2010, 07:51:57 PM

Very nice. For an "interim purchase" the Vigilante appeared to take on a life of its own. Still trying to figure out how you'd have cut a vertical bomb bay into one in real life.

Maverick · November 04, 2010, 07:58:25 PM

Good stuff.

As for the Vigi bomb bay, the original had a tunnel between the engines that ejected it's load & additional fuel tank, so I don't see a real problem converting that tunnel into a conventional bay between the engines.

Regards,

Mav

MartG · November 06, 2010, 10:29:37 AM

All done now ( to date ) - I'd forgotten how many there were

Kerrillc · November 06, 2010, 02:09:06 PM

They are all very interesting and have very plausible back stories. I have always liked the Vigilante in the single seat form but the twin finned variant with the triple engines well that is just sweeettttt!!!.

Yes indeed, I think you could I LIKE IT!!!

Thanks for putting them out for everyone to see.

K

rickshaw · November 12, 2010, 05:42:39 PM

Quote from: Maverick on November 04, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
Good stuff.

As for the Vigi bomb bay, the original had a tunnel between the engines that ejected it's load & additional fuel tank, so I don't see a real problem converting that tunnel into a conventional bay between the engines.

Regards,

Mav

I can. The fuselage frames wouldn't have had provision for it (no gaps). In real life you'd have to cut the frames or replace them. The fuselage would be significantly weaker, either way. It'd be easier to build a new aircraft in the end, I suspect. It might even be easier to perfect the rearwards ejection system (and in all likelihood cheaper).

MartG · November 13, 2010, 02:00:29 AM

The rearward ejection system itself worked fine - the problem was what happened to the bombs after they left the aircraft. It was found that they had a tendency to be pulled along by the aircraft's wake, so destroying any possibility of precision delivery of bombs.

rickshaw · November 15, 2010, 05:23:53 AM

Quote from: MartG on November 13, 2010, 02:00:29 AM
The rearward ejection system itself worked fine - the problem was what happened to the bombs after they left the aircraft. It was found that they had a tendency to be pulled along by the aircraft's wake, so destroying any possibility of precision delivery of bombs.

With nukes you don't need precision.

I still reckon a good big 'chute would have fixed that problem.