Stuff That Never Made It - but why?

[jcf]

do how the USAF used to, to get around the funding problem by calling it a Nimrod

Not just the USAF and not just a method of former eras, the most recent example is the Super Hornet.
The Super Bug is 25% larger than the legacy Bug and is pretty much a new aircraft. The commonality
claims were eyewash for the politicos.

[Weaver]

The MRA.4 wing is all-new, tip-to-tip. I think it's a shade bigger than the original and certainly a different, and more efficient, airfoil section. The wing is stated to be responsible for a big chunk of the endurance increase in addition to the improved engine efficiency.

BTW, an expression of just how efficient the BR.715s are is how quiet they are. A couple of weeks ago, we all went outside to watch PA.4 take off for the first time. He did a circuit, and on the other side of it, you couldn't hear the engines at all.

[McColm]

The RAF Hercules had the same problem with its engine noise, the passengers can hear them as well. That's why they bought the quieter C-130Js.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Ahem !! Gentlemen 

So back to the title of this thread - I think it was called Stuff That Never Made It - but why?

All those second generation jets like the Skyray, Demon, Tiger, Swift, Scimiter etc, all really dramatic and/or elegant designs but unfortunately under-powered, but 'What If' sutable engines had been available - how long would they have served ??, what would have happened to their 'replacements' (Crusader, Harrier, Jaguar, Phantom etc) would they, in-turn, have been developed at all, or delayed or simply 'looked different'......

Other stuff:
The 'Hansa' exec jet/feeder airliner with the forward swept wings, I don't recall its' name - The Luftwaffe used it for a long time (the last 'Marine' ones got to wear the three-tone grey lo-vis scheme) - but just wasn't a commercial 'hit'. Too radical ?, or was it uneconomical ?

M551 Sheridan
Alright the Shillalegh was a failure - perhaps disaster, but why wasn't it re-armed with a 90mm or even a 105mm, the tests were carried out (I recently bought both the Squad/Sig and Osprey books on the type), even if the US Army didn't want a 'conventionally armed' light tank, there surely was a market for one in the mid-seventies, in South America, Asia and North Africa, not to mention some European nations (Denmark immediately comes to mind) who were still using up-gunned M24 Chaffee's.

Would be a nice 'What If' project tho'.....

Autogyro's
Whilst you cannot fault the enthusiasm of Ken Wallis and other like minded souls (was it 'Benson' in the USA ??), it seems such a shame that the Autogyro simply didn't live-up to its' promise. So why ??, I honestly don't know, anybody got a theory ??

And finally for now:

Sinclair C5 & Bond Bug
So why did these two fail..... your guess is as good as mine 

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sinclair-research.co.uk/c5/images/h-c5-l.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sinclair-research.co.uk/c5/&usg=__qeD9ETjEgPBRPM6Df83LT0Nw7WQ=&h=504&w=400&sz=38&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=olY2tq3clqWumM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=103&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsinclair%2Bc5%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/photos-cars/bond_bug_76.htm

Ian

[Weaver]

M551 Sheridan
Alright the Shillalegh was a failure - perhaps disaster, but why wasn't it re-armed with a 90mm or even a 105mm, the tests were carried out (I recently bought both the Squad/Sig and Osprey books on the type), even if the US Army didn't want a 'conventionally armed' light tank, there surely was a market for one in the mid-seventies, in South America, Asia and North Africa, not to mention some European nations (Denmark immediately comes to mind) who were still using up-gunned M24 Chaffee's.

Perhaps an up-gunned Walker Bulldog or Chaffee did the job just as well at a lower price than a re-armed Sheridan? Since the objective of the Sheridan was to add integral recce and anti-tank to airborne forces, how about converting the chassis to do the two roles separately - one with a TOW launcher of some kind, and the other with a two-man 20mm-armed recce turret?

Autogyro's
Whilst you cannot fault the enthusiasm of Ken Wallis and other like minded souls (was it 'Benson' in the USA ??), it seems such a shame that the Autogyro simply didn't live-up to its' promise. So why ??, I honestly don't know, anybody got a theory ??

Well they did live up to their promise, but it was a promise that not many people were interested in. People who needed hovering and vertical landing wanted a proper helicopter and people who wanted a light aircraft generally had a club field to fly from and didn't need it, plus conservatism (cautiously) raises it's head again. I understand that autogyros are experiencing something of a revival in light aviation at the moment.

Sinclair C5 & Bond Bug
So why did these two fail..... your guess is as good as mine 

The former was suicidal in heavy traffic, particularly when in front of HGVs where it vanished into their blind spot, and the latter was cramped and unstable. Quite a few Bond Bugs were sold, you used to see them on the road quite often in the 1970s, and they're very collectable nowadays, but they were always regarded as a "novelty" "fun" vehicle in mould of a mini-moke oe monkey bike, rather than serious transport.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Sinclair C5 & Bond Bug
So why did these two fail..... your guess is as good as mine  

Ian

I was edging toward irony, there.....   - True story: My first job in 1983 was in Southport (where I first met the Dork), I remember seeing a C5 being overtaken by a push-bike on Lord Street, then being shunted into the gutter by the bus that was following. What the h*ll were they thinking when they said it could be used on the open road !!

Ian

[Weaver]

Sinclair C5 & Bond Bug
So why did these two fail..... your guess is as good as mine  

Ian

I was edging toward irony, there.....  Ian

Yeah  I got it, but for the sake of these foreign types an' all...... 

There's been some discussion of the C5 on this splendid thread, which is probably it's spiritual home: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,25965.45.html

[Mossie]

Posted this pic in the 'Heroic Failures' thread, This was actually a publicity shot with Sir Clive Sinclair in his creation & demonstrates pretty well one of the major reasons it bombed!

[kitnut617]

The former was suicidal in heavy traffic, particularly when in front of HGVs where it vanished into their blind spot,

Something in the same vane, over here people who drive their 'Smart Cars' on the main highways are playing with their lives, I saw one which nearly got itself wiped out only a few weeks ago when two trucks had it between them and then one of the trucks decided to change lanes, right where the smart car was -- and neither driver in the trucks could see it.  When I say trucks I mean the 1/2-1 ton trucks everyone drives around in around here but this in the photo is beginning to be a common occurrence.

[blue520]

Something in the same vane, over here people who drive their 'Smart Cars' on the main highways are playing with their lives, I saw one which nearly got itself wiped out only a few weeks ago when two trucks had it between them and then one of the trucks decided to change lanes, right where the smart car was -- and neither driver in the trucks could see it.  When I say trucks I mean the 1/2-1 ton trucks everyone drives around in around here but this in the photo is beginning to be a common occurrence.

Sorry just can't help my self, I hate seeing hoaxes being passed on. Have a look at http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/smallcar.asp Snopes reports that the crushed car is a Ford Escape SUV. Also if you look at a large version of the photo it can be seen that the wheel cover is of a style that is not normally seen on a Smart Car, plus the wheel has 5 lugs and a Smart Car wheel has 3.

[nev]

All those second generation jets like the Skyray, Demon, Tiger, Swift, Scimiter etc, all really dramatic and/or elegant designs but unfortunately under-powered, but 'What If' sutable engines had been available -

Can't speak for the others, but I believe the Skyrays problems went beyond its engine...



The last Ford in operational service, used by the US Navy Test Pilots School to train students in "flying an aircraft with poor handling qualities"

[Mossie]

Smart cars aren't as small as you think.  Length wise, yes, but width wise it's similar to other small cars & height wise its actually taller than most due to it's layout.  It shouldn't be any less visibile than any other car on the road.  I would guess the problem lies with the two drivers of the trucks not paying enough attention, or the lack of visibility from those vehicles.  In the case of the crushed car, either the truck was going far too quickly, or the guy just kept going when he hit the cars.  Even in something that big, you feel a collision (been in a bus when it was hit by a van not particularly hard, you knew it had happened).

[jcf]

The production Skyray was not underpowered, the J57-P-8 engine enabled the aircraft to easily exceed Mach 1 in level flight
and had an incredible rate of climb. The Ford was the first carrier based aircraft to hold the absolute world speed record (XJ-40
powered prototype), the 100-kilometer closed course record and broke five time-to-height records. The F4D equipped VFAW-3
based at NAS North Island was the only USN unit assigned to the North American Air Defense Command.

The Ford definitely had unique handling characteristics, however its short service life was down to it being a pure point-defense
interceptor, it was nicknamed the 'Ten Minute Killer', the effort to turn the F4D into a more versatile all-weather type produced the F5D
Skylancer project.

The second Ford prototype was used by GE to test the J79 and CJ805 (civil J79 variant) engines, the J79 fit in the engine bay with room to
spare being much smaller than the prototype's original J40.

The Grumman F11F's engine problem was more a matter of reliability than power.

The problem with the autogyro concept is that it didn't 'scale up' well, every attempt at a large 'true' autogyro was a failure, and as stated,
once the helicopter was perfected it became irrelevant. And before anybody gets their knickers in a twist, I'm speaking of autogyros
not gyrodynes like the Rotodyne, those are a very different animal.

[Mossie]

[Weaver]

The autogiro does still have an advantage over the helicopter in that it's cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and easier to maintain. The problem is that the buyers for whom these things are critical are predominantly private pilots. Since the largest private flying market in the world is the USA, and since the USA and it's flying clubs arn't exactly short of space, the autogyro's ultra-STOL capability irrelevent. If the USA had the population density and consequent land-pressure of, say, Japan, it might well be a different matter.

The thing I can never understand is why the autogiro didn't take off as a naval spotter aircraft in the 1930s. It would seem a no-brainer, particularly for a smaller warship like a destroyer or a light cruiser: no heavy, bulky catapult, no weather-dependent sea-landing, and no heavy, bulky, slow crane recovery. Just wheel the thing out of a superstructure hanger, around X and Y turrets, turn into the wind at a reasonable rate of knots and launch and recover it from the quarterdeck.