Aircraft that Britain Shouldn't have had

[kitbasher]

Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.

IIRC they did - under Heavylift contract to the MOD.

[kitnut617]

To be fair with the Argosy, it was only designed to meet the "medium" range requirement, and to replace the Hastings.  Also expecting the Dart engines to do anything other than what they did is stretching it a bit.  If it had been Tyne engined, it might have made quite a bit of difference.

[Thorvic]

Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

Technically they should have chosen the HP-111 a freighter version of the Victor, but went with the Short Belfast using the Britannia wing to keep Shorts going rather than fulfilling the RAF requirement. The Belfast really is one we Shouldn't have had as it was a political concession to a failing region.

[kitnut617]

Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

Technically they should have chosen the HP-111 a freighter version of the Victor, but went with the Short Belfast using the Britannia wing to keep Shorts going rather than fulfilling the RAF requirement. The Belfast really is one we Shouldn't have had as it was a political concession to a failing region.

As much as I like the HP-111 IMO, it's not ideal.  The low wing and spar running right through the cargo hold really restricts it's capability. I've been rummaging through the stash to see what could be used as a donor kit to build one but finding a fuselage with 15'-6" diameter is challenging.  Although a C-133 comes close at 16'-0", although a 1/16" difference would be hard to spot in 1/72 scale

[jcf]

The C-130 actually predates the Argosy; C-130 first flight 1954, Argosy 100 1959, Argosy C Mk. 1 1961.

Turning the Civil Series 100 freighter into a military freighter increased the empty weight by 10,000 lbs.,
loaded weight increased by 9,000lbs, but payload only increased by 1,000 lbs and available engine power
only went up by 1800hp. The Series 100 cruised at 280mph, the C Mk.1 at 253mph. The eternal joy of
engineering trade-offs.

-A-W Aircraft since 1913, Oliver Tapper, Putnam 1988 ed.

[Logan Hartke]

The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around, too. It was slower than a Gloster Gladiator. I know it was a transport aircraft, but c'mon. Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad. Heck, the C-124 production line was shutting down as the Beverly was just entering service.

As a huge fan of the V-bombers, I likewise agree that 3 production aircraft was 1 or 2 too many. Sadly, it's probably the Valiant that shouldn't have been produced, but possibly one of the others, as well.

Cheers,

Logan

[DarrenP]

Far less controversial (maybe) - the Shorts Belfast. Great concept (simple on paper and ticked all the political and industrial boxes) dismal execution.

The 'Belslow'.  Worked them when they were with Heavylift.  Remember reading somewhere that Shorts proposed a version that would have had a C-141 wing and engines (maybe not the engines, possibly something else.  Now THAT would have been good.

They called the early Belfasts 'Dragmasters' as they were so slow, but when the strakes were added either side of the ramp it improved them no end and then they called them 'Fastbacks'. 

Nevertheless they were the RAF's largest freighters until the C-17s came along, they'd have made a heck a difference to the Falklands affair.

they did Leased from Heavylift Air cargo I heard the Belfasts were leased every year from Heavy lift till the Antonov An124 came into service

[PR19_Kit]

The C-130 actually predates the Argosy; C-130 first flight 1954, Argosy 100 1959, Argosy C Mk. 1 1961.

I didn't say it did.

I said the Argosy entered RAF service 5 years before the Herk did............

[kitbasher]

The Beverly. Essentially a poweeed derivative of a glider design IIRC. Think Me 323 Gigant with only 4 engines.  The story goes that crews navigate their way back to base after longish overwater routes by following the oil slick they left behind on the way out.

To me the fixed u/c was an anachronism, and the aircraft was underpowered, but it did its job in rough short field conditions.

Like a lot of 50s British aircraft to me it seems underdeveloped. Not a bad aircraft, just not as good as it could have been, especially transports.

[royabulgaf]

This is going in an interesting way.  Perhaps a C-130 vs the other RAF transports thread should be started?

[DarrenP]

I like the Andover but wonder if buying Canadian Caribou or Buffalos might not have been a better option?

[Logan Hartke]

This is going in an interesting way.  Perhaps a C-130 vs the other RAF transports thread should be started?

It's probably not very fair. C-130 vs almost any similarly sized transport from that era is a pretty one-sided matchup.

Cheers,

Logan

[sandiego89]

The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around.....Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad.

I think a Beverly to C-124 comparisome is going to be tough.  Quite a bit of difference in the two: "old Shakey" was really a strategic lift asset (if that term had been in use then), Beverly was really more for in theatre/tactical lift, and had good STOL.  Empty weight of the C-123 nearly 25% larger.   

I do agree the C-130 set a really high standard.  Starting with a clean airlifter design (not dervied from a civil aircraft) helped get it right.  50 years of production say a lot.     

[PR19_Kit]

The Beverly's one I've had a hard time wrapping my head around, too. It was slower than a Gloster Gladiator. I know it was a transport aircraft, but c'mon. Compare it to a C-124 Globemaster II of the same era and it really looks sad. Heck, the C-124 production line was shutting down as the Beverly was just entering service.

So that's a vaild reason for the RAF buying C-124s?

1) The C-124 couldn't air drop the loads that the Beverley could (and I've DONE that a couple of times in my life!)

2) The UK wouldn't have been able to afford the dollars to buy C-124s back then anyway as we still owed you guys a small fortune from WWII!

3) The UK aviation industry was quite capable of designing and buidling an aircraft THAT THE RAF WANTED AT THE TIME!

Like I said earlier, this thread seems to be degenerating into another 'Why doesn't the rest of the World all buy US aircraft?' thread. 

[sandiego89]

Agree kit.  And not all US trash haulers were world beaters or met the requirements of other air forces.  The C-119, 123, 124, 133, 141, 5, all had limitations or problems sometime during their career, or would be too expensive/unavailable for export.   The USA, UK, France, USSR (and others like Canada and Japan etc. for specialized transports) were all capable of building the transports they needed and did so.  Many later bought the C-130 as it fit the bill quite nicely.