Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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:-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.
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.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.
I want to see a home built two seater that looks like an A10!
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.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.
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 Spiteful/ Seafang. Yes about 20 or so were built but it never quite made it into service as such.
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.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.
I think the SeaMaster counts as a series-production type compared to most of the quoted never-built or single-example types here. Lovely aircraft but with twelve built, the SeaMaster is positively mass-produced!!!Hmm... a lot of them.
Martin P6M SeaMaster...
I built that model. I think the decals provided were for Continental Airlines.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
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 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.
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?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
There is a NASA project on that now. The design is a single seater and has some interesting design compromises.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?
That was the gist of my remark.There is a NASA project on that now. The design is a single seater and has some interesting design compromises.