Blackburn YA 7 & 8
I cam across this recently apparently designed to fit the same spec that resulted in the Fairey Gannet.
Mason's "British Bombers" says it wasn't a great success but what killed it was that they couldn't load a specific homing torpedo into the bomb bay even though this had been an integral requirement of the original Spec. Can anyone shed any light on how you could go ahead and not only design, but also build and fly an aircraft so out of touch with the spec. you were intending to meet? https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....77d4cd4304.jpg |
The YA 7 and 8 were powered by RR Griffon engines; the YB 1 built about he same time to roughly the same design (3 seats instead of 2) had the same Double Mamba as the Gannet.
Only one of each was built. |
Mason says that Blackburn hoped to fit a Double Mamba from day 1 but Fairey's, who'd developed the concept, made sure the first ones went in the Gannet prototype.
There was also a problem in fitting three crew in the YA-7 - they were all on top under one canopy whereas the Gannet could get people inside which made for a better work environment. Still can't understand why Blackburn didn't get the bomb bay right tho'. |
Didn't Shorts build an aircraft to the same spec?
No not the Seamew! |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10618266)
Still can't understand why Blackburn didn't get the bomb bay right tho'.
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10618309)
Didn't Shorts build an aircraft to the same spec?
|
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10618309)
Didn't Shorts build an aircraft to the same spec?
No not the Seamew! |
According to Mason the torpedo was mentioned in the original spec for GR 17/45 and Fairey , Blackburn & Short tendered - the first two had prototypes ordered. He does note "it may be significant that at no time was any mention made in Blackburn's records of the YA7's ability to carry homing torpedoes"
Apparently it may not just have been the torpedoes - it seems the weapons bay doors had insufficient ground clearance for "some naval weapons specified." Sounds like it was designed by the "C" team TBH. Shorts design was the SB3 - originally an adaptation of the Sturgeon and as MR says a new spec M./6/49 was issued with 2 prototypes being ordered. It was at Farnborough 1950 but "had lost almost ever vestige of the Sturgeon's handling capabilities... nightmare.... fundamental shortcomings...." abandoned after with only one prototype flying. Scrapped early 1951. The Seamew was built to spec M.123 which was completely different and first flew in 1953 |
|
It depends which Sturgeon you refer to. The in service TT.2 and TT.3 were apparently very easy to fly and a delight - the SB.3 on the other hand was truly awful to fly and a bit of a dog (or elephant, depending on how you see it). Rob |
Not surprising looking at that picture..................
|
Originally Posted by Wyvernfan
(Post 10618593)
It depends which Sturgeon you refer to. The in service TT.2 and TT.3 were apparently very easy to fly and a delight - the SB.3 on the other hand was truly awful to fly and a bit of a dog (or elephant, depending on how you see it).
|
"Yes Madam - I can assure you this is not a Boeing 737-MAX. It is a Boeing 737-8200" - courtesy of Ryanair's new paint job
|
Looks like it should have a blade attached to the nose, and be used for clearing snow off airstrips!
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.