AnonymousDFB1 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 I'm new around here, but I have some very nasty ideas about things that could be done to Canberras..... I'm not declaring what I'm going to build till the start, but it will upset the Canberra fans (twice) and I'm not even building a Canberra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 I'm not declaring what I'm going to build till the start, but it will upset the Canberra fans (twice) and I'm not even building a Canberra does Bexy know about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 does Bexy know about this? Oh yes, she wasn't too upset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 (edited) I'm definitely in. Plans are crystalizing around a Griffon engined Lincoln, plus possibly a Shackleton (RNZAF to go with my RAAF one) and most likely another Eagle engined Tempest. I also have some ideas for Lancasters but I'm going to keep them under wraps for now. The names Housekeeper and Nursemaid for weapons feature highly. Edited January 20, 2010 by The wooksta V2.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDragon Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Currently thinking I'll build my long-planned canard B-50, not sure if it'll have six or eight engines yet but I have three Academy kits to play with. Paul Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Oh I am sooo in. Although I can't choose between: A. SAAF MiG-19; or B. SAAF F-47N in Korea Choices, choices!!! D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted January 19, 2010 Share Posted January 19, 2010 Right - mine's a Swedish Me262.........it'll be a slightly WHIF! MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilfish Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 I'd like to have a go too. It seems the Royal Navy Tomcat is being done , but I have a few other ideas, if I can get hold of the kits in time. Vulcan B3 RN McDonnell Hornet FRS-1 - post Falklands (obviously) Lightning F7 (actually did one of these several years ago) Griffon engined Mosquito Maybe also a battle of britain Meteor, assuming that backing was granted to Power Jets in 1935 Have to wait and see what turns up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Maybe also a battle of britain Meteor, assuming that backing was granted to Power Jets in 1935 Seen one of these done a few years back at the Scottish Nationals. It had a tail dragger configuration, solid rear canopy and was called the Thunderbolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilfish Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Seen one of these done a few years back at the Scottish Nationals. It had a tail dragger configuration, solid rear canopy and was called the Thunderbolt. Would keep the tricycle undercarriage, but basically repaint it as an earlier scheme. Possibly even pre-war....1938? Looking at the time line and how things could have panned out had backing been given when first asked for, it's entirely possible we could have had an operational jet fighter by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 If even a fraction of these brilliant ideas come to pass we're in for a lot of fun May have to think up something a little more imaginative than an initial production TSR-2 having seen all these suggestions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted January 20, 2010 Share Posted January 20, 2010 Would keep the tricycle undercarriage, but basically repaint it as an earlier scheme. Possibly even pre-war....1938? Looking at the time line and how things could have panned out had backing been given when first asked for, it's entirely possible we could have had an operational jet fighter by then. The only snag would be if Gloster had the design capacity? They were designing a two seat heavy fighter in that time frame and both Supermarine and Hawker seemed to be the preferred companies for fighters. The Supermarine 324 might have been a better bet converted to jets - the Taurus pusher version looks like it's got a pair of Meteor cowlings anyway. (Recipe - Airfix Val wings plus Frog/Novo Hornet fuselage and Mosquito tailplanes, plus chopped up Airfix Meteor for the engines). Hmmn. A taildragger Meteor converted to RR Trents might be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 21, 2010 Author Share Posted January 21, 2010 Mmm, some pretty impresive ideas. I too may have to think of something else a little bit more different than my planned TSR.2... thinking cap is on... Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnobear Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I've just thought of another two I could do, a USN Mustang and a Me 262 Torpedo bomber I'll probably think of quite a few more in the time before the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wooksta V2.0 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 An Me 262 wouldn't have the clearance to carry a torpedo - no centreline rack as the wheels are too close together, not to mention the nosegear. There were plan for it to carry the smaller 250kg Bomben Torpedo bombs but these were never issued past the trials stage. The Arado Ar 234 would be a better bet - the Dragon Ar 234C comes with a BT1400 as does their Ar 234P which I've always considered as an ideal type for a maritime strike aircraft. USN Mustang? There's been much discussion of this elsewhere and it's doubtful - the USN prefered radials whilst there's be political ructions about using an Air Force type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnobear Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 An Me 262 wouldn't have the clearance to carry a torpedo - no centreline rack as the wheels are too close together, not to mention the nosegear. There were plan for it to carry the smaller 250kg Bomben Torpedo bombs but these were never issued past the trials stage. The Arado Ar 234 would be a better bet - the Dragon Ar 234C comes with a BT1400 as does their Ar 234P which I've always considered as an ideal type for a maritime strike aircraft.USN Mustang? There's been much discussion of this elsewhere and it's doubtful - the USN prefered radials whilst there's be political ructions about using an Air Force type. Unless I can think of something else then, looks like I'll drop the idea of a Torpedo-bomber 262 Still could do the Mustang though, after all - it is a What If Groupbuild Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Unless I can think of something else then, looks like I'll drop the idea of a Torpedo-bomber 262Still could do the Mustang though, after all - it is a What If Groupbuild Definetly, it is a what-if, so if it makes sense to you, then build it, I'd like to see a USN Mustang... Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F111Fan Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm concerened. After a recent modelling block, I HATE 1/144 scale-the one my build will be in. I'm just hoping it'll be an alright kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Hmm, radial engined Mustang perhaps Nakajima15? Tom, a kit is a kit, don't let the scale dissuade you. Sure you can pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hypnobear Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Hmm, radial engined Mustang perhaps Nakajima15? I doubt I'll be able to change it to a radial engine, I'm only a beginer at modelling. Thought of another one since my last post - I have a mainly complete but undercarriageless IL 2 on my shelf, so I might just put some skis on it (and maybe extra armament) - could add that to my list if finishing off a mostly complete model is allowed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Hi Nakajima if i may stick my oar in here i don't see why a Sea Mustang should be ruled out. Surely the whole point of a what if is that a different scenario is explored for instance- what if the Corsair hadn't been tamed for carrier ops by the FAA? What if a navalised Mustang was developed? i know the pros and cons have been discussed elsewhere, but this GB allows foralternative histories. it sounds more plausible than the torpedo carrying Schwalbe because of the problems of slongin the tinfish under a 262- as stated above just a thought mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Nakajima! A Sea Mustang would have some basis in fact http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...sa%3DG%26um%3D1 so as to colour schemes you're only limited by your imagination................ MH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 (edited) Had the naval Mustang entered operational service, this is what it could have looked like. Based on a VF-4 F6F Hellcat's livery in early 1945. Profile by Gaëtan Marie. sweet! Obviously, the Navy was interested in the Mustang's long range at a time when early jets had very short “legs” and could not stay over the battlefield or stand patrol for extended periods. Nonetheless, navalized versions of the P-51H appear not to have been attractive enough to warrant further interest. Attempts to navalize the Mustang thus came to an end and the “Seahorse” became an amusing and little-known “what-if” part of aviation history. like what if they were used in Korea!! could be a lot of fun to be had Edited January 23, 2010 by walrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Velociweiler Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 ...'problems of slongin the tinfish under a 262'... ? It would go in the normal position, held in the torpedo clamp between the strut supports for the two floats, in the same configuration the Arado 196 carried a Nuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousFO98 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 It would go in the normal position, I assumed a torpedo would be difficult to carry due to the length of the front gear doors the normal payload position for a Me262 was under the nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts