Fairey Gannet

[PR19_Kit]

Great minds Jon - I was just looking at the P7 in Stuck On The Drawing Board and wondering what it would take to make one.  

How about starting with a Viscount for the fuselage, assuming you can find a suitable Viscount kit of course?

Odd that the P7 has a fixed undercarriage, and I wonder what the passenger response would have been to an ostensibly single engined aircraft.

[kitnut617]

How about starting with a Viscount for the fuselage, assuming you can find a suitable Viscount kit of course?

Rugrats do/did a -700 (got one in the stash) and Airways Vacform did a -800 version, both in 1/72 scale.

[Martin H]

ive got a set of plans to 72nd scale via TSRjoe some ware for this beast. We worked out that an Fokker F27 inverted would most likely work.

[Martin H]

ive got a set of plans to 72nd scale via TSRjoe some ware for this beast. We worked out that an Fokker F27 inverted would most likely work.

...sounds of scuttling off to the stash, as I happen to have a F27 ....and scaled drawings for the P7... 

The front end is pure Gannet, as I've already tried a Gannet over the drawings in 1/72.

I rather like the look of the P7, as it has that rather "industrial" look that most of Warton's output from that era has...

Hmmmm... Dan Air markings perhaps? Or maybe a military variant in Transport Command colours.... thinks...



Duncan

nah BEA highlands and Islands

[rickshaw]

The lift size issue on RN carriers is related to the armoured deck. The deck wasn't just armoured, it was also the longitudinal strength member of the ship's hull, which mean it couldn't be too bendy or twisty. Essentially, US carriers' hulls went up to the hangar deck, and the hanger and flight deck were unstressed superstructure. In RN carriers, the hull went up to the flight deck. Using the flight deck in this way saved structural weight because it made the hull, as seen from the side, a deeper "beam" which would resist bending with less material, and weight saving was imperitive given the huge expanse of area that needed to be armoured. The downside was that you couldn't cut big holes in the deck: if you look at Ark Royal, her lifts were narrow rectangles either side of the centreline (thus preserving the "beam") while those on Illustrious et al are far narrower than the deck, thus preserving two "beams".

Interestingly, both camps saw some merit in the other's ideas by war's end: the Malta and Midway designs both had armoured decks to withstand kamakazis and open hangers for more capacity and better flight ops tempo (engines could be warmed up on the hangar deck).

Of course, the way 'round this problem is to use deck-edge lifts, rather than cutting or trying to cut holes in the flight deck.   Then the only limit on aircraft size effectively is the distance from the nose to the rear undercarriage wheels.

[rickshaw]

How about starting with a Viscount for the fuselage, assuming you can find a suitable Viscount kit of course?

Rugrats do/did a -700 (got one in the stash) and Airways Vacform did a -800 version, both in 1/72 scale.

Mach 2 does an limited run injection kit of the Viscount.

[jcf]

So Gannet front end grafted onto an F27 fuselage, leave it high wing, remove the engines but retain the nacelles for the landing gear
and some other yet to be determined use (lift engines?), add Barracuda style Fairey-Youngman flaps.

The end result is the Fairey Booby COD aircraft. 

As to Brit carriers, ironically the old Argus was the only one on which aircraft could be struck below without
the need for folding wings

[Weaver]

The lift size issue on RN carriers is related to the armoured deck. The deck wasn't just armoured, it was also the longitudinal strength member of the ship's hull, which mean it couldn't be too bendy or twisty. Essentially, US carriers' hulls went up to the hangar deck, and the hanger and flight deck were unstressed superstructure. In RN carriers, the hull went up to the flight deck. Using the flight deck in this way saved structural weight because it made the hull, as seen from the side, a deeper "beam" which would resist bending with less material, and weight saving was imperitive given the huge expanse of area that needed to be armoured. The downside was that you couldn't cut big holes in the deck: if you look at Ark Royal, her lifts were narrow rectangles either side of the centreline (thus preserving the "beam") while those on Illustrious et al are far narrower than the deck, thus preserving two "beams".

Interestingly, both camps saw some merit in the other's ideas by war's end: the Malta and Midway designs both had armoured decks to withstand kamakazis and open hangers for more capacity and better flight ops tempo (engines could be warmed up on the hangar deck).

Of course, the way 'round this problem is to use deck-edge lifts, rather than cutting or trying to cut holes in the flight deck.   Then the only limit on aircraft size effectively is the distance from the nose to the rear undercarriage wheels.

True, but you can only do that once you've abandoned the idea of a fully armoured hangar.

Deck edge lifts are one of those ideas, like angled decks and electric Gatling guns, that were adopted way after they became technically possible: it just needed the lightbulb to go on over somebody's head.....

[Weaver]

ive got a set of plans to 72nd scale via TSRjoe some ware for this beast. We worked out that an Fokker F27 inverted would most likely work.

Would a 748/Andover work? (I think there is a rare kit, isn't there?) EDIT: it would appear not, not at a sane price anyway.

The fuselage reminds me most of a Herald....

[kitnut617]

Not as rare as you might think Weaver ---

http://www.aim72.co.uk/page27.html

[Martin H]

Not as rare as you might think Weaver ---

http://www.aim72.co.uk/page27.html

Yeah but when its likely to be over £80 a go...................................................................would you spend that much on a kit just to butcher it?

[jcf]

Not as rare as you might think Weaver ---

http://www.aim72.co.uk/page27.html

Yeah but when its likely to be over £80 a go...................................................................would you spend that much on a kit just to butcher it?

Robert would. 

[kitnut617]

Not as rare as you might think Weaver ---

http://www.aim72.co.uk/page27.html

Yeah but when its likely to be over £80 a go...................................................................would you spend that much on a kit just to butcher it?

It's nigh on 100 quid (according to Hannants)

But then I bought one of the 1/72 747's so I could chop it up and make it into the Boeing XC-X    

EDIT: Jon beat me to it 

[Martin H]

the phrase more money than sense comes to mind LOL

I know I couldnt justify spending that sort of cash just for a parts donor.

[kitnut617]

A couple of years ago when things were better I wouldn't have given it a thought, bit different now though with work being quite scarse.  Although I get told things are turning around but I'll believe that when I see it.