FD Scale Vehicles 2

Bill, the P.1154 did have radar, for terrain-following and target ranging, it was only a lightweight set with a 21 inch scanner. The Navy demanded more and that is another reason why the P.1154RN became a totally different aircraft.

Red Top was actually superior to Sidewinder in the early 70s, being an all-aspect weapon when Sidewinder was a tail-homer. Moves were made to mount it on the RAF Phantoms but the much cheaper Sidewinder won over the bean counter's...

Here is a little chart of RAF bombs and weapons; (Martel anti-radar, Martel TV, Red Top, 1,000lb Mk.6 Type 100 with Mk 6 tail, Matra Type M155 68mm rocket pod in intial silver and later green, BL755 cluster bomb)

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

I added a BM30 Smerch in the firing position:

[ img ]

Hood wrote:

Red Top was actually superior to Sidewinder in the early 70s, being an all-aspect weapon when Sidewinder was a tail-homer.

Only against supersonic targets though.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

OK - time to some explanations:

1.
[ img ]

acelanceloet wrote:

squizzy wrote:

This is confusing. I thought that the S-37 tag was already used for the fwd swept wing berkut before it was upnumbered to Su-47 or has the Nato code system starting to confuse the hell out of me?

you are right. I am wondering too.... more because this one looks a lot like that single engine mig 1.44.... and he listed it sukhoi. may I see your refs or at least an explanation about this?

squizzy wrote:

Mitoko wrote:

This is confusing. I thought that the S-37 tag was already used for the fwd swept wing berkut before it was upnumbered to Su-47 or has the Nato code system starting to confuse the hell out of me?

acelanceloet wrote:

you are right. I am wondering too.... more because this one looks a lot like that single engine mig 1.44.... and he listed it sukhoi. may I see your refs or at least an explanation about this?

In 1989 Sukhoi bureau take order to make a new plane - frontline fighter / fighter-bomber plane to change on line planes like: Su-17/20/22, Su-25, Mig-23/27.
In 1992 the works was stopped (some elements of avionics have been used in Su-25TM) from the reason problems with money and decision that Russian didn't want a fighter with only one engine.
Later Sukhoi tried to interest this plane a Arabian countries.

It was project of aircraft like Gripen, but bigger - with 18 points for weapon (5,0-8,3 t of weapon), engine R-79M (181 kN).

[ img ]

jabba wrote:

Mitoko wrote:

Is your drawing above meant to be this:
(...)
(...)Or this:
(...)

Jabba:

S-56 was started from training S-54

[ img ]

Later on the base of the training S-54 was made a combat version. After some time a name of combat version was changed to S-56.

[ img ]

So - on the first two draws You have this S-54/S-56.

Later the Sukhoi decided to made next version - with engine AL-41F or R-79M - You have it on third draw - and I made this plane which I draw.

Mitoko wrote:

Shouldn't they be facing the other way?

Mitoko wrote:

.......

Later the Sukhoi decided to made next version - with engine AL-41F or R-79M - You have it on third draw - and I made this plane which I draw.

Aaah, everything makes sense now!

_________________
[ img ]

Jabba's Worklist

More TSR.2s!

First up a darker camo scheme to DCI S. DCI S.136/69 and an Far Eastern example with ventral fuel tank and wing tanks for extra long range.
The second two are finished in a mid-70s RAF colour scheme and both have Martel ASMs, the top one anti-radar and the bottom one the TV-guided variant.

[ img ]

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Excellent Hood

An re the P1154; yes, I recall it was all the 'mucking about' by the FAA that screwed it up as a navalised variant; instead, a proper single seat type with decent radar could have been a winner (and still miles ahead of the Sea Harrier). It was the obsession with having two seats and so on that helped screw this project

I read somewhere once of the possibility of making a long range fighter version of the TSR2.Superb drawing mate.I did consider drawing a FD scale aircraft but after seeing the excellent artwork on this thread I think I will leave it to the experts.

Shipbucket

Who is online