My Library just grew again......... 2022 edition

[NARSES2]

And a lovely book of pics of Challenger 2s in Germany, with pics of them in all possible positions, even loaded on their transporters...... 

Oh I wonder why that is of such interest ? 

[PR19_Kit]

And a lovely book of pics of Challenger 2s in Germany, with pics of them in all possible positions, even loaded on their transporters...... 

Oh I wonder why that is of such interest ? 

[jcf]

From the Coventry Show today, 'Swift from the cockpit' by Nigel Walpole. Interestingly it still makes the claim that the Supermarine 510 was the first British swept wing aircraft to fly, yet says that the Hawker P.1052 preceded the 510 by a month. What? 

Supermarine Aircraft since 1914 states in regards to the Type 510 first flight:
"It was the first British jet-engined aircraft to fly with sweepback on both wing and horizontal tail surfaces."

The P1052 had conventional unswept horizontal tail surfaces.

Re. the P1052, a photo of it was posted on one of the Facebook aircraft groups I follow and one of the first
comments was that it looked like a Luft46 design, my response was the following:
"Lufteidolia -

the tendency of some to state "Hey that looks like the (WWII German aircraft/project/Napkinwaffe wank
of your choice)" upon first seeing an aircraft type they didn't know about previously.

Derived from pareidolia, sometimes associated with Luftidolatry."

[PR19_Kit]

Yes, but other sources keep on about the 510 being '...the first British swept wing type to fly....'.

Which plainly isn't true, but like many 'facts' it seems to be reported ad nauseam once it's been written down, and copied a few times

I have similar problems with such 'facts' being reported (wrongly....) about the Advanced Passenger Train's history, and the fact that I actually worked on it seems to hold no sway with the prats who continue to write these error filled articles. 

[jcf]

Yes, but other sources keep on about the 510 being '...the first British swept wing type to fly....'.

Counter with "The 510 was the first British swept tail type to fly." 

It's kind of odd that people keep making that misstatement as all of my references, the Supermarine Putnam,
Mason's The British Fighter, Sturtivant's British Research and Development Aircraft, Goulding's Interceptor,
and Hygate's British Experimental Jet Aircraft make it clear that the Type 510 was the first British type with
all flying surfaces being swept and that it had flown after the P.1052, not that it was the first British type
with swept wings full stop. Heck, even Wikipedia gets it right.


Evidently the distinction is too subtle for some or it may be that they get confused by it being the first swept-wing
aircraft to land on an aircraft carrier, and thus conflate the two separate events.

[zenrat]

...Re. the P1052, a photo of it was posted on one of the Facebook aircraft groups I follow and one of the first
comments was that it looked like a Luft46 design...

No it doesn't.  It looks, if anything (given it's similarities to the Armstrong Whitworth Sea Hawk) British.

[jcf]

...Re. the P1052, a photo of it was posted on one of the Facebook aircraft groups I follow and one of the first
comments was that it looked like a Luft46 design...

No it doesn't.  It looks, if anything (given it's similarities to the Armstrong Whitworth Sea Hawk) British.

Similar statements are very common and it's tiresome.

Show a picture of a Northrop YB-49 and the stolen from the Hortens numbskulls pounce, most of whom
are immune to facts.

[Gondor]

Got two books delivered this afternoon from eBay

The Design and Development of the Hawker Hunter by Tony Buttler. Recommend by Lee and as he says it's worth it just from a quick flick through as well as the drawings that my LHC GB Hunter needs 

AIRfile 11: Inform & Inspire: Fairey Swordfish. Bought for two reasons, the first to increace the AIRfile book collection I have and the second for the subject matter and all the colour schemes provides as useful for real world and whiff's

Gondor

[Gondor]

Arrived today

The Oakwood Press, Portfolio Series, Volume Three. The Great Eastern Railway Part One, Compiled by M. Sharman. A Selection of Locomotive Drawings

Bought hopeing that it would provide some information for some projects

Gondor

[Weaver]

Finally got hold of a copy of Conway's Warships 2015.

I've wanted this for ages because it has a very good article on post-war RN weapons, including lots of detailed drawings of magazines and installations, which I've been finding snippets of online for years. Now I have it in my hand, I realize that the 'snippets' really amount to 90% of the article, but it's still good to have it all in one place.

Other good articles in it are one on modern carrier design, and a historical one about the Russian 'Popovka' circular battleships, which is an interesting rabbit hole for the what-iffer.

EDIT: Another what-if project in the book is the 1929 plans for an Italian aircraft carrier by an officer called Bonfiglietti. The ship's a sort of 'mini-Lexington' with four twin 6" (as opposed to Lex's 8") turrets disposed fore and aft of the island. I havn't had a chance to read it properly yet, but it looks like a pretty solid design on a quick scan.

[Rheged]

The Popovkas were fascinating  vessels, even if they were a dead end in maritime design.   I rather like the description of the monitor Novgorod (allegedly)spinning like a sea borne top if only one main gun was fired

[NARSES2]

Didn't some other nation play with the idea of circular warships ? My memory says "yes" but won't tell me any more than that.

[PR19_Kit]

The Novgorod's the only one that comes up on a Google search.



This is a model of it, obviously.

[Gondor]

Received today

The Great Eastern Railway by Cecil J. Allen

Caledonian Railway Company Centenary 1847-1947

Both via Abe Books

Gondor

[Weaver]

The Novgorod's the only one that comes up on a Google search.



This is a model of it, obviously.

The only other warship was the larger Vitse-Admiral Popov:




A related design was the Imperial yacht Livadiia, but she was more oval than purely circular: