Favorite plane never built (or perhaps as a prototype).

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

But not as a dedicated interceptor with nothing to intercept. Instead, make the Arrow fit the roles of the CF-100, CF-101, CF-104 and CF-116. It's maddening to me that as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Britain's Hawker-Siddeley, Avro Canada did not collaborate with head office to create a global multirole fighter. Instead we have Hawker designing the P.1121 at the same time Avro is about the fly the Arrow in 1958. Had the two countries and three company divisions (Hawker-Siddeley also owned Orenda Engines, makers of the Iroquois) collaborated and combined economies of scale, we might have got past the Canadian and British finance and defence departments, and ended up with a multirole competitor to the F4 Phantom - coincidentally, also first flown in 1958.
Except by 1958 it wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of HS in the UK. By then A V Roe Canada was an industrial conglomerate with fingers in many pies, with its own stock market listing for 48% of its shares, with Canadian profits retained in Canada and management with a great deal of freedom. So while theoretically still controlled from Britain the situation doesn't look nearly so clear. And with a company of that size and importance to the Canadian economy there were bound to have been political considerations to be taken into account. Also note that after 1954, Orenda was owned by AV Roe Canada not HS in Britain. While it may not seem an important point, it is when you look at who was giving the orders in the Group management structure. From Wiki:-

"

Expansion and diversification edit


A.V. Roe Canada was restructured in 1954 as a holding company with two aviation subsidiaries: Avro Aircraft. and Orenda Engines, which began operating under these names on 1 January 1955.[4] Each company's facilities were located across from each other in a complex at the perimeter of Malton Airport. The total labour force of both aviation companies reached 15,000 in 1958.

During the same period, with Crawford Gordon as president, A.V. Roe Canada purchased a number of companies, including Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Canadian Car and Foundry (1957), and Canadian Steel Improvement. By 1958, A. V. Roe Canada Ltd. was an industrial giant with over 50,000 employees in a far-flung empire of 44 companies involved in coal mining, steel making, railway rolling stock, aircraft and aero-engine manufacturing, as well as computers and electronics. In 1956 the companies generated 45% of the revenue of the Hawker Siddeley Group.[5] In 1958, annual sales revenue was approximately $450 million, ranking A.V. Roe Canada as the third largest corporation in Canada by capitalization. By the time of the cancellation of the Arrow and Iroquois, aircraft-related production amounted to approximately 40% of the company's activities with 60% industrial and commercial.[6]

In 1956, 500,000 shares were issued to the public at a total value of $8 million. By 1958, 48% of the shares of A.V. Roe Canada were publicly traded on the stock exchange.[7] Although controlled and largely owned by UK-based Hawker Siddeley Group, all profits from A.V. Roe Canada were retained within the company to fund development and growth. Management of the Canadian companies remained in Canadian hands."

So it looks to me like A V Roe Canada was being run pretty much independentlyvfrom HS in the UK. Hence the lack of co-operation between the two entities. In hindsight it seems daft, but there you go.
 
Except by 1958 it wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of HS in the UK. By then A V Roe Canada was an industrial conglomerate with fingers in many pies, with its own stock market listing for 48% of its shares, with Canadian profits retained in Canada and management with a great deal of freedom. So while theoretically still controlled from Britain the situation doesn't look nearly so clear. And with a company of that size and importance to the Canadian economy there were bound to have been political considerations to be taken into account. Also note that after 1954, Orenda was owned by AV Roe Canada not HS in Britain. While it may not seem an important point, it is when you look at who was giving the orders in the Group management structure. From Wiki:-

"

Expansion and diversification edit


A.V. Roe Canada was restructured in 1954 as a holding company with two aviation subsidiaries: Avro Aircraft. and Orenda Engines, which began operating under these names on 1 January 1955.[4] Each company's facilities were located across from each other in a complex at the perimeter of Malton Airport. The total labour force of both aviation companies reached 15,000 in 1958.

During the same period, with Crawford Gordon as president, A.V. Roe Canada purchased a number of companies, including Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Canadian Car and Foundry (1957), and Canadian Steel Improvement. By 1958, A. V. Roe Canada Ltd. was an industrial giant with over 50,000 employees in a far-flung empire of 44 companies involved in coal mining, steel making, railway rolling stock, aircraft and aero-engine manufacturing, as well as computers and electronics. In 1956 the companies generated 45% of the revenue of the Hawker Siddeley Group.[5] In 1958, annual sales revenue was approximately $450 million, ranking A.V. Roe Canada as the third largest corporation in Canada by capitalization. By the time of the cancellation of the Arrow and Iroquois, aircraft-related production amounted to approximately 40% of the company's activities with 60% industrial and commercial.[6]

In 1956, 500,000 shares were issued to the public at a total value of $8 million. By 1958, 48% of the shares of A.V. Roe Canada were publicly traded on the stock exchange.[7] Although controlled and largely owned by UK-based Hawker Siddeley Group, all profits from A.V. Roe Canada were retained within the company to fund development and growth. Management of the Canadian companies remained in Canadian hands."

So it looks to me like A V Roe Canada was being run pretty much independentlyvfrom HS in the UK. Hence the lack of co-operation between the two entities. In hindsight it seems daft, but there you go.
Very informative. One wonders what would have become of it it all had the Arrow never been pursued at all, with the firm pursuing other endeavours. Instead of the Arrow build up and devastating collapse once canceled.
 
I want to see a home built two seater that looks like an A10!
A-10Scale55%.gif
 
Hmm... a lot of them.
E.g Convair XF2Y-1, XC-99, XB-46, YB-60 and X-6, North American XB-70 and XF-108, Martin P6M SeaMaster, Douglas XB-19, Lockheed XF-90, 'WS-110A' project, and nuc-powered 'WS-125' project, General Dynamics FB-111G & FB-111H... and many many others. In short, McNamara would be 'happy'.
 
Last edited:
Ditto on the B-35 Flying Wing, but for late war deployment in the Pacific where its range and payload would exceed that of the B-29. Initial contracts specified late 1943 delivery of the first prototype. WW2 B-35 production might have been possible if this project had a higher priority, perhaps to augment and be the immediate successor of the B-29 with the B-32 cancelled?

However, my other favorite that never made it into full production is the Republic XF-12 Rainbow.
I agree on the XF-12 and add the P-44 (the AP-4J/L version) and the P-69. The P-44 would have been one hell of a ground looper.

I like the B-35 but it was not a good design. Quite frankly flying aren't all that good outside a couple of niche applications. That's why nobody builds them.

When the B-35 was ordered Northrop did not fully understand how to properly control a flying wing. Most of the N-9M flights were for this purpose. Even if B-35 development had been ahead of schedule the B-35 had sever and most likely insurmountable propeller vibration. I think this would lead to both the production and per-production contracts being canceled around the time (may 1944) that the production contract was historically canceled.
 
Supermarine Spiteful/ Seafang. Yes about 20 or so were built but it never quite made it into service as such.
An early Seafang instead of the Seafire with Merlin-engine driving 3-4 blade prop, but with the Seafang's wider undercarriage would have been nice in place of the Sea Hurricane, Fulmar, Firefly and Seafire. Essentially a Seafire with a Seafang wing. With the A6M-like retrograde move to wingtip fold, we'll need wider lifts on the earlier armoured carriers.

supermarine-seafang-vb895-wings-folded.jpg
 
RN carriers had armored flight decks, with the result that the overhead space on the hangar deck was limited. RN F4U had to have their wing tips bobbed to enable them to fold their wings on the carrier deck.
 
RN carriers had armored flight decks, with the result that the overhead space on the hangar deck was limited. RN F4U had to have their wing tips bobbed to enable them to fold their wings on the carrier deck.
Good point. I don't think the Brits ever made a single seat, single engined carrier aircraft with the fold back wing design of the Skua, Fulmar, Firefly or Grumman Cats. Even the Hawker Sea Fury, which had the necessary power to compensate for a heavier wing folding set-up chose to go with the normal vertical fold.
 
Last edited:
RN carriers had armored flight decks, with the result that the overhead space on the hangar deck was limited. RN F4U had to have their wing tips bobbed to enable them to fold their wings on the carrier deck.
The armoured flight deck had nothing to do with the hangar height until you get to Indomitable. 16ft had been the RN standard for quite some time. And the USN practice of tricing spare aircraft into the hangar overhead had a lot to do with the need for additional hangar height in their ships.

RN carrier hangar heights:-
Argus & Eagle - 20ft
Hermes - 16ft
Furious (as reconstructed in 1925) - 15ft
Courageous, Glorious, Ark Royal and Illustrious class - 16ft
Indomitable (design modified in 1938) - 16ft (lower hangar), 14ft (upper hangar)
Implacable class (1938 design) - 14ft both hangars.
Unicorn - 16ft 6in
Activity CVE - 21ft
Pretoria Castle CVE - 17ft
Nairana, Vindex, Campania CVE - 17ft 6in

In the case of the Indomitable & Implacables the reduction in hangar height was driven by the requirement for more hangar space while keeping the displacement within the 23,000ton Treaty limit (they also had thinner hangar side and end armour to compensate).

USN hangar heights:-
Lexington & Saratoga - 20ft
Ranger - 18ft 11in
Yorktown class - 17ft 3in
Wasp - 17ft 2in
Essex -17ft 6in
Independence - 17ft 4in
CVE- 17ft 6in

Pre-war 16ft clear height was perfectly adequate for the RN even something like the Supermarine Walrus (15ft 3in folded on its wheels) could be comfortably accommodated. It was accepted sacrifice that these wouldn't be able to be accommodated in the Implacables.

It was in late 1942, with priorities at home favouring RAF aircraft types and the acceptance by the Admiralty that the FAA would need to rely on US types for several years, that increased hangar height became essential. So the 1942 Colossus /Majestic class were designed with 17ft 6in hangar height, while the Audacious class design was modified in Nov / Dec 1942 to use the same height (at a cost of adding 4ft to the beam of the design which itself caused problems).

In terms of the main wartime US types only the SB2C Helldiver couldn't be accommodated in any of the various armoured carriers (limitations being folded width and height). The 3 Illustrious class were able to take Corsairs after the minor clipping of their wings. In 1944 Indomitable got F6F Hellcats. With deliveries of Hellcats to the RN being insufficient in 1943/44 the two Implacables received Seafires as their fighters.
 
You're right, let's delete the SeaMaster. Then instead let it be a Boeing XB-54, Lockheed R6V Constitution, Saturn, and YF-12.
And the XB-70-based SST! My favorite SST that never existed.

View attachment 765878
It's a real shame we didn't see more SST's; the advanced Concorde was also a looker. Maybe it's time to look again at SST's but with the benefits of sonic boom research?
 
It's a real shame we didn't see more SST's; the advanced Concorde was also a looker. Maybe it's time to look again at SST's but with the benefits of sonic boom research?
There is a NASA project on that now. The design is a single seater and has some interesting design compromises.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back