1950's GB - General Discussion

[NARSES2]

and RAN FAA Skyshark.

Always liked the Skyshark and it's ilk. 

[Weaver]

Oof:

Mirage:
MTOW - Empty weight = 14,600lb
SNECMA Atar 09C:  9,440lb thrust dry, 13,240lb with afterburner

F-102:
MTOW - Empty weight = 12,150lb
P&W J57-P-25: 11,700lb thrust dry, 17,000lb with afterburner

So with 2,260lb less dry thrust and 3760lb less afterburning thrust, the Mirage managed to carry 2,500lb more fuel & weapons and have a top speed 76% faster...

I wonder if that F-102 max TO weight was the real limit of the airframe+engine or whether it was constrained by available capacity/pylons/bay payload? That is to say, if you could fill the bays with lead ballast weights instead of low-density missiles and uprate the pylons to carry bigger tanks, could it have taken off at higher weights?

Mirage external hardpoints make all the difference and it was designed as a fighter, the F-102 was designed as an interceptor, with all the limitations that implies. Including a lack of external carriage beyond fuel tanks. The J57 engine weighed ~ 2,000 lbs more than the Atar and all of the gubbins of the missile bay no doubt added a fair amount of weight.

Dump the weapons bay, replace it with fuel tanks and hardpoints, add more wing hardpoints and it would be more flexible, but you'd still have all of the aerodynamic limitations of the basic design. It was never as fast as it was supposed to be, thus the F-102B which was so different it was redesignated as F-106. The F-102 wouldn't be a good choice as a fighter.

Yep, that's what I was getting at with my last paragraph. I read that there was an 'F-102C' proposal for a ground attack version/conversion (maybe dating from when they assumed they were all going to be replaced in the interceptor role by F-106s?) but I can't find any details. There's certainly scope for WAY more weight in the weapon bays: a 750lb M117 bomb has almost the same stowage envelope as a 135lb Falcon. The disappointing top speed wouldn't matter so much in the ground attack role either. Also, I wonder how much volume and weight you could free up by dumping all the automatic GCI hardware and what you might replace it with?

[Weaver]

1959 saw fins on cars reach their zenith.

1950 saw the first flight of the Douglas Skyshark.

Two possible builds there for me.  '59 Caddy hover car and RAN FAA Skyshark.

Build a Skyshark variant with as many tail fins as possible, then write the back story such that George Lucas's dad flew one, and that gave lil' George the idea for the X-Wing.

[Nick]

An idea for somebody with the skills and parts....

Vickers Wolverhampton. The ultra-safe option for the V-Bomber competition in case jet engines just couldn't give enough power.

Body of a Valiant with enlarged wings from a Wellington or Varsity. Maybe even those from an Avro Lincoln or Shackleton.

[PR19_Kit]

And Griffons?

LOTS of Griffons............ 

[Dizzyfugu]

Ah, already got an idea for a quick first entry for this GB. 

Rats, this bubble busted - won't work historically. But maybe my year-long-postponed F-106 project will fit - it will be a Vietnam war aircraft, but the Six' design was in the Mid-Fifties, so it should be eligible?

[Caveman]

Can I port my ideas from my never started Lightning Hunter and Canberra GB?

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=50581.0

[perttime]

Can I port my ideas from my never started Lightning Hunter and Canberra GB?

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=50581.0

The Rules say it is definitely OK if you haven't glued or painted anything yet.

It might be simpler to just start a new thread under this GB?

[loupgarou]

Can I port my ideas from my never started Lightning Hunter and Canberra GB?

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=50581.0

The Rules say it is definitely OK if you haven't glued or painted anything yet.

It might be simpler to just start a new thread under this GB?

That's very good news for me too...

[Gondor]

Starting to get too many ideas for this Group Build. I have already bookmarked a couple of threads for projected builds and now haveing got myself an Airfix Membership I will end up with a pair of Meteor FR.9's which fit nicly into the time period. So thinking Norwegian or Swedish? This all depends on how well the other builds go of course.

Gondor

[jcf]

Something to bear in mind is that a number of aircraft that were in service during the '50s actually date to
late and post-WWII pre-1950. This is especially true of period concepts and projects that eventually came
to fruition during the following decade.

This also applies to vehicles and vessels.

[Weaver]

The iconic conflict of the 1950s was the Korean War. One theme you could do is to take aircraft, or even nations, that didn't go to Korea, to Korea.

From a British POV, the glaring feature is that no RAF jets went to Korea. We ended up buying Canadair Sabres anyway just afterwards, so why not have us swallow our pride and buy some NA ones a bit earleir so we can participate. Alternatively, go through with the 1948 proposal to productionize the Hawker P.1052 (yes I know an accurate one isn't as easy as sticking swept wings on a Sea Hawk, but for a whiff...).

[Gondor]

The iconic conflict of the 1950s was the Korean War. One theme you could do is to take aircraft, or even nations, that didn't go to Korea, to Korea.

From a British POV, the glaring feature is that no RAF jets went to Korea. We ended up buying Canadair Sabres anyway just afterwards, so why not have us swallow our pride and buy some NA ones a bit earleir so we can participate. Alternatively, go through with the 1948 proposal to productionize the Hawker P.1052 (yes I know an accurate one isn't as easy as sticking swept wings on a Sea Hawk, but for a whiff...).

Or do something like this Weaver?



I have had someone think it was a Seafire at one model show.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

Alternatively, go through with the 1948 proposal to productionize the Hawker P.1052 (yes I know an accurate one isn't as easy as sticking swept wings on a Sea Hawk, but for a whiff...).

I've got a resin P.1081 somewhere, that could work too................

[Weaver]

The iconic conflict of the 1950s was the Korean War. One theme you could do is to take aircraft, or even nations, that didn't go to Korea, to Korea.

From a British POV, the glaring feature is that no RAF jets went to Korea. We ended up buying Canadair Sabres anyway just afterwards, so why not have us swallow our pride and buy some NA ones a bit earleir so we can participate. Alternatively, go through with the 1948 proposal to productionize the Hawker P.1052 (yes I know an accurate one isn't as easy as sticking swept wings on a Sea Hawk, but for a whiff...).

Or do something like this Weaver?



I have had someone think it was a Seafire at one model show.

Gondor

LOL - An 'F-40Q' in US terms presumably, but what would the FAA call it? A Seahawk F.Mk.1 perhaps? Love the contraprop. Presumably they got replaced in about '51/'52 by these    :




Now that makes me think that there's an obvious application for some of those AZ MB.5s we all bought: Korean War ground attack alongside the USAF's F-51s, with the 2-seaters acting as fast-FACs (fast by the standards of the day, anyway).



Countries that sent forces of some sort to Korea:

United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Turkey
Australia
Philippines
New Zealand
Thailand
Ethiopia
Greece
France
Colombia
Belgium
South Africa
Netherlands
Luxembourg