Des Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 47 minutes ago, Giorgio N said: Did people really comment that at the time ? Here in the land of the Daily Fail and the Fun Sun accuracy has never been a prerequisite for the populist reporting of technical and scientific matters especially if it can be accompanied by an alliterative headline. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Des said: Here in the land of the Daily Fail and the Fun Sun accuracy has never been a prerequisite for the populist reporting of technical and scientific matters especially if it can be accompanied by an alliterative headline. It was however not them, but part of air traffic controller Dave Gunson's very funny stand-up comedy routine. Which I commend, by the way 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 Thanks for sharing , have heard shorter excerpts before but never his full delivery. The claim about supersonic aircraft shooting themselves down has been made quite often particularly in the case of the F-104 Starfighter although it seemed to master the art of uncontrolled falling from the sky without the aid of gunfire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 Great link, Work In Progress! My personal favorite: ˝In a case of emergency, captain always leaves the aircraft last. So, if I pass you on my way to emergency exit, assume you are the captain.˝ Cheers Jure 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orso Posted December 18, 2019 Share Posted December 18, 2019 6 hours ago, Ed Russell said: Which kit? Airfix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthViper Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) Hi That is my approach : The danger of self destruction is so old as the Human race and science explains it very well and History demonstrates it even better. That's because I believe the Armed Forces being interest in converting the fantastic Concorde in a Nuclear War Vector was not so insane as today's one might think. In Germany during 60's 70's there was the thinking "better Dead than Red" and the Germans, particularly the German Women, know the soviet communist army better than any people... so transforming German cities in radioactive fields is not so far from that the Soviets made during the WWII German invasion. I would believe the Concorde would be a Direct Vector disguised as a civil plane and this explains the interest of the CCCP at that time in develop the Tu-144 Charger. In case of war in Europe, rapidly turned into Nuclear War, there would not be such things like big civilian aircraft flying alongside borders of the Countries involved because the war efforts prohibited such expenses of strategic fuels. I would think the BAE engineers know from the beginning the Concorde could accept some ASM tactical nuclear missiles to be used against strategic Cities, airports, factories, military bases, what else, using adaptations from tactical missiles like the AIM Genie, Falcon or SRAM on rotary launcher or launchers mounted inside fuselage since no passengers would be there, as we see in B-52s. It would be the Final War so not many nuke bombs would be necessary. Cheers SouthViper Both images are posted here under the fair use of images for illustration purposes only. Edited December 19, 2019 by SouthViper complete my thinking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf117 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 19 hours ago, Work In Progress said: It was however not them, but part of air traffic controller Dave Gunson's very funny stand-up comedy routine. Which I commend, by the way Ah, that's it! I couldn't remember where the comment was from, but really should have, especially as I still have two copies of that hilarious after-dinner speech on vinyl... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar side Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 I am sure I remember the red top papers carrying a why don’t they piece on converting Concorde to a conventional bomber after the Black Buck runs to the Falklands. A Concorde able to retain its speed and able to air to air refuel would have some range compared to a Vulcan, even if slowing to subsonic for a bomb run. But I am sure they were just recycling old stories without any real concept behind it. Probably better to hang external stores on a VC-10, although they were hardly new airframes by the early 80s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 In the early 70s, soon after I had started my career in the MOD in London, I was working in the RAF Air Movements branch, and I remember that on the wall outside the 'Boss's office was a picture of a group of Concorde aircraft being loaded at a RAF airfield, these aircraft were in full RAF markings with 'RAF Transport Command' on the fuselage, we often used to comment about this, and if it would ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general melchett Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 Back in 2010, armed with Tony Buttler's 'Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles' I modified one of the original kits to carry a pair of projected Bristol Grand Slam II standoff missiles, the scheme being based on the concept drawing by Arthur Gibson, (although Arthur had his carrying four Blue Steel Mk 1's...which would have been a tight fit, to put it mildly!) We all know it wouldn't have happened but it's fun to let the imagination run now and then... I know these have been reposted a number of times, but hopefully they are useful. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeC Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 On 12/17/2019 at 7:44 PM, Adam Poultney said: Think I might have to go with the entirely more realistic recon version.... On 12/18/2019 at 11:14 AM, andyf117 said: I recall discussions back in the day about the prospect of a military Concorde; some wag commented that - frequently pointed out at the time - as the aircraft flew faster than a rifle bullet, an armed version was out of the question, because if it opened fire, it would shoot itself down! Back then, I think a reconnaissance version was considered the only viable option - with camera-bays replacing the baggage holds... Reconnaissance makes absolute sense for the Concorde: the same high-speed (although not quite so high-speed) supersonic cruise concept as the SR-71, and less costly to operate. Perhaps delete a lot of windows and add ejection seats for the crew? Operators? 39 Sqn or 58 Sqn, being Canberra PR9 units, are plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReccePhreak Posted December 25, 2019 Share Posted December 25, 2019 On 12/17/2019 at 10:53 AM, Adam Poultney said: mmmmm that's an idea... PR Concorde.... I agree. But then, I am partial to photo reconnaissance aircraft. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAT69 Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 As I recall, the story behind the F11F-1 shooting itself down was caused by the Tiger flying at and maintaining supersonic flight during and after the gun firing. The bullets suffered from supersonic drag and the Tiger caught up with them. See Ginter's Naval Fighters #40 for more details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now