AIRCRAFT BRITAIN SHOULD HAVE HAD

[The Wooksta!]

I think you'll find that those markings are 603 City of Edinburgh.  607's colours are very different.

And 607's Spitefuls were camouflaged.

[NARSES2]

Nice 

[crudebuteffective]

That's the one I meant 603, thanks for the correction, I had the decals left over from an airfix spit 22 and were too good not to use

[The Wooksta!]

I've serials for three aircraft released over the years.  Some day I'd like to do all three together.

[crudebuteffective]

WESTLAND WYVERN NF1 RAF night fighter trials unit 1941



This is what the RAF had instead of the Boulton Paul Defiant

[Logan Hartke]

That seems like a simple idea, but I'd never thought of it before!  Very neat concept and very nicely executed.

Cheers,

Logan

[perttime]

The tail could be a problem, if the Whirlwind Wikipedia article is to be believed: they went for a single fin and raised tailplane so that they'd miss the turbulence from the flaps. Even with the big Fowler flaps, landing speeds were high enough that it could not operate from all fields.

Looks good, though.

[NARSES2]

Very nice idea, well executed  One problem is that you have 2 areas where you cant fire with the twin tails, rather then one with a single tail. Still what the heck it's still a nice idea 

[DarrenP]

which carrier would the BAC Navalised Canberra have operated of? the wing span would have precluded Audcious, Malta and CVA01.

What if we'd gone Phantom much earlier with the Navy getting F4K and the Airforce getting the F4M to replace Lightning and the F4L (F4E with UK modifications) and Buccaneers replacing Canberra B(I)'s and Hunters?

[Thorvic]

which carrier would the BAC Navalised Canberra have operated of? the wing span would have precluded Audcious, Malta and CVA01.

What if we'd gone Phantom much earlier with the Navy getting F4K and the Airforce getting the F4M to replace Lightning and the F4L (F4E with UK modifications) and Buccaneers replacing Canberra B(I)'s and Hunters?

Sea Canberra was envisaged for the 1952 post war carrier design as we were watching the US developments with Forrestal, Savage and Skywarrior and thought we could do the same using the Canberra. The size of carrier wouls have been similar to Forreatal at a 1000ft long and without the drydock and dockyard facilities available we moderated our plans accordingly.

They probably could have got a Naval Canberra suitable for for use on CVA-01, but by then it was a 40s design and they had moved forward on with design and technology and were looking at follow on designs to the 50s Buccaneer.

We were touted early on as a potential Phantom Customer with the RN getting the F-4B, however as an Aircraft the Phantom actually failed to live up to its marketing hype and proved itself unsuitable for smaller carriers (the USN were supposed to replace all its Crusaders with Phantoms includiing those on the angled deck Essex class !). If we had pressed ahead with the Malta class instead of the Audacious then we would have had a more capable ship more adapt for the F-4B. The RAF may possibly have gone for the F-4C/D initially as a Javelin replacement and picking up E models later for the strike fighter role

[McColm]

The An-124 Condor, seems like a missed opportunity. I've got the Revell 1/144 in my stash. I've researched this and a proposal was put forward for a 'westernized' version with Rolls Royce engines and avionics, joint leased with Foyle. 
The RAF went with the C-17.

[PR19_Kit]

But the C-17 is a tactical transport, with much better 'rough field' capability than an An-124.

In any case the MoD lease 124s quite regularly anyway, you can often see their fins looming over the Brize Norton hangars all the way from the A-40, some distance to the north!

[rickshaw]

I really can't see C-17s being risked too far forward, Kit.  While designed as a "tactical transport" its sheer cost means that most of the time they'll only be used to bring stuff into an initial air head and it will still be transferred to a C-130s or smaller aircraft for movement forward to the sharp end of the battlefield.  Which means an An 124 could still more than likely do the job.  Speaking of which, there is talk once more of the An 124 production line being re-opened.

[kerick]

I really can't see C-17s being risked too far forward, Kit.  While designed as a "tactical transport" its sheer cost means that most of the time they'll only be used to bring stuff into an initial air head and it will still be transferred to a C-130s or smaller aircraft for movement forward to the sharp end of the battlefield.  Which means an An 124 could still more than likely do the job. 

This was the theory many years ago about the USAF buying 747s to make up the transport shortfall. This was when everyone was all worried about the Soviet rapid deployment units. Even in the passenger layout they would have been useful hauling thousands of Army troops around.

[sandiego89]

I really can't see C-17s being risked too far forward, Kit.  While designed as a "tactical transport" its sheer cost means that most of the time they'll only be used to bring stuff into an initial air head and it will still be transferred to a C-130s or smaller aircraft for movement forward to the sharp end of the battlefield.  Which means an An 124 could still more than likely do the job. 

This was the theory many years ago about the USAF buying 747s to make up the transport shortfall. This was when everyone was all worried about the Soviet rapid deployment units. Even in the passenger layout they would have been useful hauling thousands of Army troops around.

While we may not see too many C-17's going into tactical dirt strips and hot LZ's, it does appear to be used in places that a An124 would not go, especially hot/high and short runways. Agree most loads are regular trash runs going to regual air bases that any aircraft that has the capacity would work for, but the C-17 has more flexibilty for sure.  In an ideal world a mix of tactical and strategic and commercial lift is best. Affordability is another issue.