Whose done what to....

[Army of One]

Agreed.....but Lightning had a fixed probe and that was Mach2 capable....

[PR19_Kit]

Agreed.....but Lightning had a fixed probe and that was Mach2 capable....

But only for 5 minutes, if that. 

I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?

[Army of One]

I will be keeping the droop nose.....just thinking of an armament fit.....stand off anti air.....or stand off ship killer....multiple missiles for each role......I'm thinking an AIM 54 armed weapons platform for stand off attack against waves of incoming attackers.....late 80's style.....

[Rheged]

How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities?  Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.

[PR19_Kit]

How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities?  Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.

With gun turrets as well? 

[Rheged]

How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities?  Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.

With gun turrets as well? 

Would it need them?

[Army of One]

Queens flight....? In red....?

[PR19_Kit]

How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities?  Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.

With gun turrets as well? 

Would it need them?

The gunners would have to be careful not to fire forward as the aircraft might well catch up with it's own ammunition and shoot itself down....

[TheChronicOne]

Like this?

http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html

[PR19_Kit]

Like this?

http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html

Almost, but somewhat faster. 

[RAFF-35]

Oh I like that......question.....if an IFR probe was to be fitted.....would it be a retractable one or maybe one striking out above the cockpit....? I'm thinking the second option.....

I'm going with a retractable one  ---- it has to go fast   

Wow, what did you use for the new wind shield? 

It's a modified B-1B windshield

Ahh cool, I was thinking about somehow fusing the two together anyways

[kitnut617]

I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?

From what I understand it was to have a much larger radar dish than what was in the civil one, one about the size which was in the V-Bomber fleet. So needs a bigger nose cone, which all led to more weight, which meant a more robust drooping mechanism, which meant more weight  -- etc.  Reason I reduced the forward fuselage by 12 feet was because of the radar weight without the drooping mechanizm. Main to nose undercarriage distance remains the same though.  On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.

As this was supposed to be a bomber variant, 95% of the cabin wouldn't have been used as a cabin, internal bomb bay(s), fuel tanks and other sundry equipment would have occupied the space, so if I did include a IFR probe in my build it would only to say "I've included one". Because I really don't think it would have needed one.

[NARSES2]

On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing

Perhaps it was simply the realisation that there would be no where to land when/if they got home ? 

[PR19_Kit]

On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.

That's being rather insulting to BA's pilots, many of whom were ex-RAF anyway. And no amount of training reduces the approach alpha of a particular design.

[kitnut617]

On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.

That's being rather insulting to BA's pilots, many of whom were ex-RAF anyway. And no amount of training reduces the approach alpha of a particular design.

I don't know Kit, I'm just repeating what Phil told me. He did say that RAF airfields didn't require as steep of take-off angle as civil ones did. Remember at that time the anti-noise lobby was in full stride.