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

[Colin Leighfield]

Which sums it up precisely. Another piece of great design work overtaken by events and politics. In the end the Lightning was probably as good a point defence interceptor as you could get, but that struggled for endurance so the 177 was probably going to be problematical, whatever happened. I'm careful about accusing the Yanks anyway, in spite of Lockheed's separate connivance with theF104 in Europe, that was a company, not the US government. They largely funded the Hunter and Javelin into service and paid most of the development costs on the Harrier through from the P1127. They didn't have anything to do with the demise of the 177, the RAF didn't want it, the Navy wouldn't have needed enough to make it worthwhile and in that event, why would the Germans have wanted to carry the cost of it? It would have looked good at Farnborough though.

[Erfolg]

I would not accuse the USA of nothing, I would just point at events that are known, such as reported bribery that forced one member of a Royal, in a European Government to resign. I think you are suggesting, get one small detail out of place and you are guilty, what ever the truth.

With respect to the 177 it was a contender for the West German Luftwaffe contract for the role that the F104 won. There are some books which outline the known detail of how NATO funding was restricted in such a way, that the 177 had to be fully funded by the UK, although initially this was not the case. Under these circumstances the project was less attractive to the RAF.

There is a Wikipedia link, I have somewhere, and for the moment cannot find the details of the intrigue regarding the funding and the other political manoeuvring.

At the same time I do recognise that the Germans were also playing their own political game, in seeing an opportunity to advance the manufacturing capabilities of their aircraft industry. They had demonstrated that at a technical level, they could match the UK and come close to the USA, by constructing and developing essentially prototype aircraft. Where they were less competent was milling solid wings and other advanced techniques, where advances had taken place post WW2, nor was the avionics capabilities where they wanted to be. There was a lot going for a USA link, even if the aircraft was not well suited to the many roles envisaged for it by the Germans.

Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of the condition of the UK at the time. Initially burdened by massive debt, from WW2. Which the next Government (Labour) added to, no doubt in part, whilst trying to keep people employed. The British Empire imploding, with many countries demanding independence, to emerge as the Commonwealth. Even today, many find it hard to recognise, that the UKs standing in the world is mainly historic, with respect to UN etc. Some of the advice that Duncan Sandy was given, with hindsight was wrong, yet the UK could not support all the projects envisaged, requiring the culling of much spends and the restructuring of the aircraft industry and companies.

I have worked in teams (and I am sure many others on the site) that have been involved in tenders where you knew indirectly, however good your tender was, as a package, that you were unlikely to win. It was perhaps not your turn for reasons of dependency, or perhaps support of regional, or national interests. Or maybe it is a case of developing capability across a broader base. That is without entering into the "Pork Barrel" politics. On the other hand, if tipped for the contract, the fear is then your team drops the ball..

Possibly not surprisingly, not many know anything like the full story with high value projects. Your perception of what and why things happened being dependant where you sit and at what level.

 

 

 

Edited By Erfolg on 11/08/2014 19:15:36

[PatMc]

If the SR177 hadn't been killed off as a victim of the Tory government's White Paper it would never have reached production status anyway. It's proposed role was obsolete before it's predecessor the SR53 had completed developement.
Neither the US government or US defence industry had anything to do with it's cancellation.

[Erfolg]

Patmac

My reference should have been to the USA North Atlantic Treaty, which was one of the programmes that evolved from the USA Marshal Plan, although you can argue is not directly linked, but enabled the Europeans to defend themselves against the Eastern block as it evolved.. I know I have been less than generous to the USA, as all these measures used USA tax payers money, supporting European countries. Many of which initially could not even feed themselves.

My farther at that time was part of the Control Commission, dismantling German production capabilities and shipping them out.

In most respects you cannot blame the USA, even today, to the disdain of some, much aid comes with strings attached, by the aid provider, that to some extent reimburses them. Everyone is a winner, except from the perspective of those on the side lines, saying, I can do that to!

[PatMc]

Efolg, I think you must have typed your post before reading my last one.

As I said the US had nothing to do with the SR177 cancellation.

[Erfolg]

I can see it is your opinion,

All I can say, which I know you disagree with, I have an article, somewhere, which deals with the SR 177 and its companion, that the SR 177 cancellation was related to the Germans, moving towards the F104 and that the North Atlantic Treaty Funding, specifically being blocked for the SR177 development, which was not originally envisaged.

Although prototypes of the aircraft were certainly built and flown, financially (as well as practically) you are a long way from a production model.

You are certainly correct that a major element specifically for the German thinking was the move towards the multi role aircraft. Yet you can see that the RAF was still after a point defence aircraft, irrespective of public statements, hence the EE Lightening making it into service, although not perhaps in the time frame or aircraft system that they would have originally envisaged.

Having spent a good part of my working life undertaking design studies, I came to realise what is said in public and why are not necessarily the same as what is happening at company level. Perhaps more importantly few projects make it into hardware, Whilst working in project evaluation, I possibly was involved in killing ( that should be rejecting) possibly as many 20 major projects. I think I have only seen one project through from concept almost to commissioning, On that basis, the UK aircraft industry did well to build as many prototypes that they did. All the other projects, being shoved into archive, is pretty much what you would expect.

I think you have to remind ourselves, that these events often take place over years With many vested interests, where success looks different from one party to another. An example is the current attempts to build new build reactors in the UK. This (present) process has been going on for over 15 years now, although you would think it is a process that has started during this current parliament, It has in the past involved the USA via the Westinghouse 2000 reactor sold to a UK company, then to a Japanese company, then there was a German Interest, whose interest collapsed with Germany itself closing its own remaining stations and the current front runners, the French. That is without bringing in Pebble bed reactors and other modular designs. You may suspect who is trying to pull which strings, but actually sorting out who is doing what and why, even at a specific moment, is extremely difficult, as much (almost all) takes place behind closed doors, public declarations are as much about politics as fact.

I must confess, I am now very cautious with respect almost all I believe to be true, as truth and events often appear to be very different, dependant on your perspective in the unfolding events. Even the dates when decisions were or are taken, are often very different to the date that documents are publicly signed.

[onetenor]

Some other interesting pics on that French brochure,

[Dave Hopkin]

The West German decision to go with the F104 Starfighter (nicknamed the widowmaker) was heavily influenced by bribery from Lockheed - The German Defence Minister was accused of taking $10 million in 1961 and the Prince Consort of the Netherlands took $1, many influential people in many NATO countries were also bribed to secure contracts- this all came out in the Lockheed Briber Scandal

**LINK**

The British (and competing US firms like Northrop) were playing (as far as we know) an Honest game and lost

[J D 8]

Erich "Bubi" Hartmann was Germany's leading air ace of WW2 with some 350! victory's over mostly Soviet aircraft.

At wars end he became a prisoner of the Russians and because he refused to become a member of the East German Volksarmee he was sentenced to 25 years hard labour.

Released in 1955 in 56 he became a Gesghwader kommodore in the new Luftwaffe.

He resigned early from the service in 1970 over the F104 deployment as it was not what the Luftwaffe needed.

[Erfolg]

Dave and John, I was reluctant to be quite as explicit as you have been.

I do think that the aspect you have raised does show to what extent that both companies will go to obtain contacts. In recent years, many will be aware of introductionary fees for access to influential individuals and representatives requesting "advances" as they have been unable to access funds for their part of the project.

These aspects also ignore the politics of national industrial interest, such that will almost certainly be taking place in the UK for the proposed Nuclear Power Generators. Germany and other NATO countries were no different when the F104 orders were being placed. All wanting to develop their own aircraft and manufacturing industries whilst providing resources to NATO and specifically their own Air Forces.

It also does show the poor quality of our salesmen, when they could have had EE Lightenings for Ground Attack, Naval attack aircraft. After all both intially wer desigened as point of defence aircraft, with limited avionics (no ground terrain radars etc).

Edited By Erfolg on 03/05/2015 15:14:38

[Andy Palmer]

I built this TSR2 23 years ago, electric pusher, originally on a 7 cell NiCad pack but soon upped to 10 cells. Of course now there have been lots of EDF and even turbine ones built but I thought it was pretty good for 1992

[Maarten Werner]

Andy that is a fine looking model. For 2015 it is still excellent!

I hope it is still alive. With a brushless and lipo setup it should fly even better

Regards, Maarten

[Colin Leighfield]

Andy, that looks fantastic.

[Andy Palmer]

Thanks guys . There are a few more pics in my TSR2 album if you are interested.

Sadly the model is no longer with us. Of course I still look exactly the same, haven't changed at all...ahem

Andy

[onetenor]

Scimitar prototypes for just a few One had straight wings and a v tail A bit like the Attacker . or one of the french Fouga jets. There are quite a lot of Supermarine non production and never built planes

[Colin Leighfield]

Here is the one that onetenor describes, the original Supermarine 508 prototype, which lead eventually to the swept wing Scimitar. The original specification was for a plane without undercarriage which could be catapult launched and landed on a rubber deck. It was probably the original reason for choosing the butterfly tail. The principle of rubber deck systems had been proven by Winkle Brown in test flights using a Vampire, but the idea was abandoned and the 508 re-designed with a tricycle undercarriage.

With it looks like the 535, which was the predecessor of the Swift. It also appeared as "Promotheus" in the classic David Lean film, "The Sound Barrier". The 535 was developed from the 510, which was a swept wing and tail development of the E10/44 Attacker and had a tail-dragger undercarriage. The 535 was the first of the series to have a tricycle undercarriage.

[onetenor]

That's the one alright. What about one that was produced but seldom seen The Faiery Firebrand ?

[Colin Leighfield]

I think that you mean the Blackburn Firebrand, onetenor. Originally designed as a fleet fighter with a Napier Sabre, was pretty awful and was later reconfigured as a Torpedo strike fighter, then fitted with a Blackburn Centaurus. First flew in 1942, a few got into service in 1945 but only on land. Eventually got onto carriers and served in limited numbers until 1953. Probably would have been better not continued with, but from some angles the later versions could look quite impressive and has good dimensions for a model. I've seen it modelled once or twice. Winkle said that it was a lousy deck landing aircraft, with no view over the nose.

[Colin Leighfield]

While we're at it, what about the Fleet Shadowers? First is the Airspeed prototype, the second is by General Aircraft Ltd, the G.A.L.38. The idea was to operate from carriers and fly very slowly for long periods shadowing enemy ships at a distance and radioing back to the parent vessels so that they didn't lose where the enemy were heading. Specified to fly at 38 knots for 6 hours. Engines were Pobjoy Niagaras. They flew ok but developments in radar made them unnecessary, so the idea was dropped.