qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Mornin’ all Quick question on this never made Cold War oddity I’ve been having a look at the Vickers Type 582 with a view to modelling both proposed RAF and RN variants and would appreciate ideas from the BM hivemind on they might have hooked up a twin fuselaged plane for catapult launch or have attached an arrestor hook. There don’t seem to be many details of the type other than a 3-view outline and a couple of artist’s impressions. In the absence of detailed drawings any suggestions on how to add the practicalities that Vickers didn’t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) I think you're seeing one of the many reasons why it didn't happen! The only real way of putting a hook on it would be a truly massive one extending down and back a long way from the centre of the bomb-carrying central wing section, and the structural issues would be horrendous. Seriously, the single-fuselage version of the 582 proposal would have been far more credible as a naval aircraft. If you want to build two anyway, why not have one of each of the two proposals? An RAF twin-fuselage one and this Navy version? Edited January 18, 2020 by Work In Progress 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 Fair point, well made @Work In Progress - I was half hoping that I'd get twice the bang for my buck and be able to make two models from the same bit of drafting work but you're probably right. Single (or triple depending on how you look at it) fuselage for the Navy and twin fuselage for the RAF unless some bright spark can come up with a better solution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorby Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, Work In Progress said: from the centre of the bomb-carrying central wing section I thought those were the engines in the central wing section. 2 hours ago, LostCosmonauts said: have attached an arrestor hook The nearest I can think to your arrestor hook problem, is the Sea Vixen: Obviously that doesn't help with the launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Gorby said: I thought those were the engines in the central wing section. Yes, you're right, I should have said that. The Vixen is indeed the only vaguely usable point of reference and look at how long its fuselage is, it goes a long way back aft of the main wheels, enabling the hook to be in a reasonably sensible place. And it is the main structure of the aircraft. Then imagine how far a hook would have to extend back and down from the wing centre-section of the wing on the twin-fuselage version of the 582, and how those stresses would feed into the structure. Even a normal carrier landing exercises about 2.5 x the weight of the aircraft on the root of the tail hook so it's a hefty pull, plus you have to allow for snatches and jerks and off-centre loads. All on a piece of structure that has to then feed that retardation into the twin fuselages where most of the mass is. Edited January 18, 2020 by Work In Progress 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 Sea Vixen had been my reference point as well. Had been eyeing pictures and came up with exactly the same problems I also wasn’t sure about stores though. Bombbay in the right fuselage, under the central wing and/or outer wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 You are going to need a first class honours degree in Origami to fit either into the standard flight deck lift irrespective of where anything is. Dennis 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 Good point. Any dimensions knocking about, LostCosmo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 5 minutes ago, LostCosmonauts said: I also wasn’t sure about stores though. On that 3-view of the twin fuselage version it looks like a biggish bomb bay under the wing in each fuselage. Does that look about the right shape and size to be a Red Beard? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: Good point. Any dimensions knocking about, LostCosmo? Not in the house right now but from memory the right fuselage was almost spot on 20m long. 3 view drawing is on my WIP thread in the “They Also Serve” GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: On that 3-view of the twin fuselage version it looks like a biggish bomb bay under the wing in each fuselage. Does that look about the right shape and size to be a Red Beard? That was my first thought but the sketched bomb in the side view looks like it would clash with the landing gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 well, we have no great reason to think ANY of it is particularly well thought-out... I quite like the notion of all these tiny screaming mini-Speys blowing the wing and tail though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard E Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 17 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: well, we have no great reason to think ANY of it is particularly well thought-out... I quite like the notion of all these tiny screaming mini-Speys blowing the wing and tail though. Visually it looks more like an Ekranoplan than a flying machine: now that could be an interesting concept ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EwenS Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, sloegin57 said: You are going to need a first class honours degree in Origami to fit either into the standard flight deck lift irrespective of where anything is. Dennis Might have fitted the lifts of the cancelled CVA-01 of the 1960s. Her lifts were to be 70ft long and 35ft wide forward and 70x32ft aft (deck edge so it might have been able to be a bit wider) both rated at 75,000lb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony.t Posted January 19, 2020 Share Posted January 19, 2020 On 18 January 2020 at 11:11 AM, LostCosmonauts said: That was my first thought but the sketched bomb in the side view looks like it would clash with the landing gear In the drawings the MLG retracts rearwards and the top of the leg is offset inwards. I imagine one bomb and t'other side being a big fuel tank. If it doesn't look right there's something wrong going on — and this asymmetric beast looks like trouble for everyone concerned. Tony 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 19, 2020 Author Share Posted January 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, tony.t said: In the drawings the MLG retracts rearwards and the top of the leg is offset inwards. I imagine one bomb and t'other side being a big fuel tank. If it doesn't look right there's something wrong going on — and this asymmetric beast looks like trouble for everyone concerned. Tony RE: gear folding away. Ah-ha! good point. So the bombbay and gear door on the cockpit side would be one integrated piece and on the other just the gear door. I think (for the purposes of the model I can make that work) RE: not looking right. Think of it as two F-104s flying in intimate formation - what could possibly go wrong? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted January 21, 2020 Share Posted January 21, 2020 On 1/19/2020 at 2:11 PM, LostCosmonauts said: Think of it as two F-104s flying in intimate formation - what could possibly go wrong? Now, now .... dont diss my favourite machine Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qn30jEkPz7 Posted January 21, 2020 Author Share Posted January 21, 2020 1 hour ago, RidgeRunner said: Now, now .... dont diss my favourite machine Heaven forbid. The Starfighter is a beautiful and elegant plane. Even detractors will admit that the F-104 was the most dramatic way found of creating smoking craters around Western Europe since the last Grand Slam was dropped. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 ...and that’s without anyone even considering landing one on a carrier, which is where we started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 With an F-104 it's enough to be able to launch it, use the ZELL to give you a solution similar to the CAM Ship Hurricane launch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RODH2 Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Two hooks, surely!? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 16 minutes ago, RODH2 said: Two hooks, surely!? 🤔 A possible solution with one serious drawback: if one hook catches correctly and the other doesn't the aircraft would swing to one side very dangerously, more so as standard procedure is to apply full power as soon as the pilot believes the hook has caught the wire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RODH2 Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 Yes, I'm thinking current day double-redundancy and electronic interlocks, so I will try again with my '60's cap on! 🤔😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 1 hour ago, Work In Progress said: With an F-104 it's enough to be able to launch it, use the ZELL to give you a solution similar to the CAM Ship Hurricane launch The Hurricat launch might have been OK, but recovery...? “‘Once the rockets are up who cares where they come down? That’s not my department’, says Werner von Braun” [Tom Lehrer] 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spejic Posted January 22, 2020 Share Posted January 22, 2020 On 1/18/2020 at 2:23 AM, Gorby said: Obviously that doesn't help with the launch. The launch is the easy part. You would just use a bridle like many of the aircraft of the period (like F-4's and A-4's). 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