potential RAF. 'what-if types ...

[McColm]

The C-160 as an alternative to the C-130, the British were given the go ahead to build them under license.

Wikipedia
Ref9
Wilson Flight International 25th April 1968, page 617.
Iv not come across that one, is there a file reference for it?

Cheers, Joe

[TsrJoe]

I have the issue to hand, Flight's Hannover show special, (it has a nice Transall cutaway centrefold)  engines?

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200628.html

not one i recall seeing in the files at Kew

[zenrat]

Gosh, fancy someone making up references in a wikipedia entry...

[Gondor]

Gosh, fancy someone making up references in a wikipedia entry...

It's more a case of someone attributing something to a reference on Wikipedia which does not contain the information as stated, not making up the reference.

Gondor

[zenrat]

I've looked at the wiki entry and it states the UK were given the go ahead to build C-160s under licence referencing Flight.
TSRJoe has the issue referenced and says it says no such thing.
I think the person who contributed that part of the wiki entry knew that but referenced it anyway.
OK, so not so much making them up but still being dishonest.
Maybe.

Shows you shouldn't necessarily trust wikipedia though.

[Thorvic]

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%200639.html

Considerable interest was shown at one time in British participation and the adoption of the Transall by the RAF, and talks were held between the Transall consortium, the British Aircraft Corporation and the British Government. The RAF need, defined by OR.351, was for a Hastings/Beverley replacement. In March 1963 Britain placed an order for a STOL transport—the Whitworth Gloster 681. This project was cancelled in February 1965, but the simultaneous placing of an order for the Hercules set the seal against any possibility of adopting the Transall. The main reason for passing over the Transall in favour of the Hercules was the RAF's pressing need to get the new aircraft into service as soon as possible, coupled with the incompatibility of OR.351 with the Transall range/payload performance (although in many other respects—notably in tactical operation—the Transall offers advantages over the Hercules).

Here's the quote from the reference, at the time we needed range/Payload for our operations 'East of Suez', where the Transall was developed as a European Tactical Transporter (This is why the Atlas its replacement is so much larger and why both France and now Germany are getting Hercules to give them a greater out of theatre capability)

[TsrJoe]

I guess a tenative 'what if' RAF. Transall could be justified, on a similar note i found a reference in files relating to the Douglas Thor missile of the RAF. leasing Douglas Globemaster transports for same. Another snippet is it was suggested purchasing a couple of C.119 transport (one was evaluated favourably at the RAE.) for use at Woomera

[Mr.Creak]

"Considerable interest was shown at one time in British participation and the adoption of the Transall  by the RAF, and talks were  held  between the Transall  consortium, the  British Aircraft  Corporation  and  the  British  Government.  The RAF need, defined  by OR.351,  was for a Hastings/Beverley  replacement".
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1968/1968%20-%200639.PDF

[kitnut617]

Um! that's what Geoff (Thorvic) posted three posts up

[Mr.Creak]

Oops!