Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

LostCosmonauts

Carrier landings with a twin fuselage aircraft

Recommended Posts

Mornin’ all

 

Quick question on this never made Cold War oddity

 

49400093916_6f6a10af80_b.jpg

 

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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

vickers_supermarine_type_582_single.jpg

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

Sea%20Vixen%20Hook%201.JPG

 

Obviously that doesn't help with the launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

download

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and that’s without anyone even considering landing one on a carrier, which is where we started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

LEGANERD_039575.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm thinking current day double-redundancy and electronic interlocks, so I will try again with my '60's cap on!  🤔😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

LEGANERD_039575.jpg

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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...