Flying models made from 'cancelled' British aircraft of the past.

[Jon H]

if you have ever wondered what would happen if a mosquito and spitfire made babies together....

**LINK**

**LINK**

it would be pretty cool!

Also, I would love to make a Bugatti P110. there is a P100 replica being made in the US and it will fly (in theory, the full size was never finished) but a model of the theoretical military version would just look ace!

**LINK**

[Colin Leighfield]

Good one Jon, the 327 is one of of the twin Spitfire proposals I referred to. One of them (329)?had the engines set in pusher mode, one version with Merlins and the other with Bristol Taurus air-cooled radials. The Taurus version is the one that I mentioned as looking like a jet, because the front of the nacelles had large circular ducts for cooling air that made it look just like a Meteor. They were designed with tricycle undercarriage as well. It was a disaster losing R.J. Mitchell. The Supermarine 317 bomber project I've raised in a different thread is another example.

[Mark Kettle 1]

Tony you've not got 'FireFlash any more? - Can you supply details size weigh, do you think it would have flown? Better still do you still have drawings?

Edited By Mark Kettle 1 on 05/08/2014 15:29:19

[Jon H]

I think I missed your post colin! but it would be a fun project. there was also a pencilled version of the Mb5 with a mustang style canopy which would be fun to make. so many choices...and that before we get too far into the jet age!

[Simon Chaddock]

Well if you include the MB5 as a 'cancelled' project.

It flies and its made of balsa not plastic.

Edited By Simon Chaddock on 05/08/2014 15:54:46

[Colin Leighfield]

Nice one Simon. Jon, there was only MB5 ordered (originally as a second MB3) and built and no further orders were placed. It always had a bubble canopy, I think you're referring to the MB3 that the MB5 was derived from, the single prototype was destroyed when the Sabre failed on take-off and it killed Valentine Baker. The second prototype was going to have a bubble canopy and some drawings show this, but it was re-designed as the Griffon powered MB5, that had the bubble canopy from day one.

[Mark Kettle 1]

Well this thread theme has really stirred something up, some great examples seen so far that would be great to see made up and on the slopes

[Jon H]

some googling revealed that it was indeed the Mb3! my mistake, but I knew I had seen the photo when looking at the Mb5. In any event, it would look really cool like that, and with the 6 cannons.....

http://s4.photobucket.com/user/Booga23/media/WoWP/Martin-Baker%20Aircraft/MB3_line_02_zps5855ffe8.jpg.html

Edited By Jon Harper on 06/08/2014 08:59:55

[Martyn K]

This one from the same source look like a challenge:

Got a plantpot or bucket for a cowl..

Listed as MB but not sure which one...

[Simon Chaddock]

Martyn

That is a picture of arguably the very first jet aircraft to ever fly, the 1910 Coanda although now rather better known as the man who indentified the Coanda effect.

Technically a 'motor jet' as it had a conventional piston engine driving the fan with additional fuel added as an after burner. It is supposed to have made a short hop but probably more from fan thrust than as a jet.

It would make a super scale EDF!

 

Edited By Simon Chaddock on 06/08/2014 11:00:25

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

Boulton Paul P100?

[Michael Ramsay-Fraser]

Or, indeed, P99 which looks.......interesting???

[Dizz]

Not PSS, but here are 3 of my "Planes That Never Flew" own design EDfs from the last few years.

The M52 and P1091 have obviously flown (quite well after initial C of G and control throws were adjusted), but the P1554 has not been in the air yet (too scared!). I also have a Hawker P1121 (not flown), but don't have any photos on this computer I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

Edited By Dizz on 06/08/2014 12:40:46

[Mark Kettle 1]

Dizz those examples you have modelled are excellent, are you able to share spans, weighs and set-up and flying experiences.

[Colin Leighfield]

All fantastic eh? I've never seen the proposed delta wing Hunter modelled before, or the P1154. I know that the M52's been done, but I haven't seen it camouflaged with the yellow "P" for prototype. The MB5 has been modelled quite a lot, but I don't think the MB3 has and aerodynamically, it's much the same. Why not do it instead? The P99 and 100 are another good ideap and even the Coanda biplane that Martyn put up and Simon identified has possibilities, although the small tail would be interesting!

[Dizz]

Posted by Mark Kettle 1 on 06/08/2014 14:48:34:

Dizz those examples you have modelled are excellent, are you able to share spans, weighs and set-up and flying experiences.

Some basic details:

M52

S 26.7" (680mm) L 30.3" (770mm) W 2lb (910g) Phase3 56mm EDF from a dead F16, Don's Wicked Extreme 570W on 4S T:W 0.74

P1091

S 26" (663mm) L 33.7" (857mm) W 3lb 4oz (1.33kg) Wemo Mini pro fan, HET 2W-20 800w on 4S T:W 0.8 Fuselage design based on the Westwings Hunter kit

Both a bit tricky to get in the air, but once flying behave themselves. Endurance limited to about 3 1/2 minutes, but to be honest that is plenty enough time.

P1154

S 36" (822mm) L 49.9" (1267mm) W 5lb 2oz (2.33kg) Lander 78mm fan1450W on 6S T:W 0.8

P1121

S 29.75" (756mm) L 50.4" (1280mm) W 4lb 3oz (1.9kg) HET 6904, AEC 28-58-1 motor 1400W on 6S T:W 0.95

These last 2 have been ready to fly since last summer, but we have kept finding excuses not too. However might actually get around to it during summer leave at Merryfield. I did all the drawing in ACAD and either CNC or laser cut the parts. I also cnc'ed my own plugs to vac-form fan ducting and canopies.   Painted with either car rattle cans or aIrbushed with Humbrol enamles with a coat of KlassKote to seal.  Make my own decals on a vinyll cutter.

Pete

Edited By Dizz on 07/08/2014 12:15:54

Edited By Dizz on 07/08/2014 12:17:03

[Colin Leighfield]

The P1121 looks fantastic. here are some more of the Avro 730, which I find pretty exciting. i

[Mark Kettle 1]

Cheers for those facts Dizz and pictures this thread is sure inspiring.

[Simon Chaddock]

Dizz

I note that you have given your superb 1121 a saw tooth leading edge. I would agree it quite likely would have had by the time it entered service (as did the Hunter) but the leading edge of the mock up was straight.

[Dizz]

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 08/08/2014 11:30:03:

Dizz

I note that you have given your superb 1121 a saw tooth leading edge. I would agree it quite likely would have had by the time it entered service (as did the Hunter) but the leading edge of the mock up was straight.

I know that Simon, but it isn't a model of the mock up

Mine is based on the Olympus powered 3-view with the bigger rear end - more room to hide the all moving tail plane crank.

Other aircraft in the Never Flew category I have fancied having a go at are the DH127 and Fairey Delta 3.

[Colin Leighfield]

Wow! Go for it Dizz. ( Both of them, that is).

[Erfolg]

Having never heard of the FD 3, I did a search and fond this link.

I am sure that many who have worked in industry, will recognise that the project was essentially a sale/tender brochure. If so it is very disappointing that it did not make the next stage, when the proven FD 2 hardware existed and was a proven, known concept. Could it have been sacrificed for the Saunders Roe rocket/mixed fuel aircraft. Which essentially foundered to the USA withdrawing the NATO funding, to make way for F 104 sales?

With many of these proposals, they benefit from putting onto a time line, with details of the spec against which they were designed against, who actually won the contract and perhaps the killer question, why the winner won. Particularly when the winner turned out a disappointing product from a function perspective.

[Dizz]

Posted by Erfolg on 10/08/2014 11:51:57:

.........................Could it have been sacrificed for the Saunders Roe rocket/mixed fuel aircraft. Which essentially foundered to the USA withdrawing the NATO funding, to make way for F 104 sales?....................................

I don't think so, more a rather more practical reason: advances in turbine technology, especially wrt reheat/after burners, meant that the performance gains from rocket power were able to matched by a pure jet without the complication of additional power and support systems.

I agree that there was an agressive F104 sales pitch covering the later period in question, which also saw off the Arrow in Canada, but the SR177 would have been a complete nightmare to operate in the roles intended simply from the HTP logistics requirement.

Pete

PS

Reminds me that I also built and "flew" a small SR177 too! It was 6 years ago, everything about my build was completely wrong and after 3 attempts to launch it suffered a CAT 5 impact with the ground. I still have the CAD files and now know what to change in the design to make it flyable, but so much other stuff I want to do first.

[Erfolg]

I totally agree that the SR 177 etc would have been a operational disaster.

What I am suggesting, although without access to the time line and MOD specs and the invitation to tender list, it is conjecture. Although from personal experience, these design studies are not undertaken out of the blue, there is either direct encouragement or indirect/unofficial encouragement. Just because the cost incurred in design, going through to the model brochure and other expenses involved with tendering are considerable. Non the less it is quite surprising how many of these studies are undertaken. Sometimes the funding is disguised or hidden by funds from other project funding, either unspent, not allocated to the intended project etc.

The F104 European sales drive is full if intrigue and the UK access to its share of the Marshall Plan monies, were withdrawn specifically, although not stated as such, to take UK manufacturers out of the picture.

[PatMc]

I don't see how the F104 sales drive can have had anything to do with the demise of the SR177.
The F104 first flew in 1954, the Marshall Plan was over by 1952. The SR177 project didn't get funding until 1956 & was killed off, like a swathe of military aviation projects, by the Conservative government's 1957 defence White Paper.