John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post Reply
User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4710
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by Renegadenemo » Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:21 pm

The Concorde inlet is a marvel of engineering in its own right...

https://www.heritageconcorde.com/air-in-take-system
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

I have wrought my simple plan
If I give one hour of joy
To the boy who’s half a man,
Or the man who’s half a boy.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

sbt
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by sbt » Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:13 pm

Renegadenemo wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:21 pm
The Concorde inlet is a marvel of engineering in its own right...
True, but I wish that page was better proof-read and designed. Sadly I no longer have colleagues who worked on that bit who could clean it up for them.

The page is also wrong about Concorde being the only aircraft able to Supercruise. As far back as the Lightening (not for long though - someone seems to have forgotten about space for fuel on that aircraft) it was possible. TSR-2 did it, and today it's relatively common (Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, Draken, Mig-31, Su-35, Grippen NG). She wasn't even the only CIVILIAN aircraft capable of Supercruise, the Tu-144 did it.

Now back to boats...

User avatar
Renegadenemo
Posts: 4710
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 12:29 pm
Location: N E England
Contact:

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by Renegadenemo » Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:53 pm

TSR-2 did it
Long pondered this one. A small aircraft stuffed with two afterburning Olys and virtually no wing or any other provision for carrying fuel. It surely had to be even more compromised than a Lightning.
I'm only a plumber from Cannock...

"As to reward, my profession is its own reward;" Sherlock Holmes.

I have wrought my simple plan
If I give one hour of joy
To the boy who’s half a man,
Or the man who’s half a boy.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

sbt
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:39 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by sbt » Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:56 am

Renegadenemo wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:53 pm
Long pondered this one. A small aircraft stuffed with two afterburning Olys and virtually no wing or any other provision for carrying fuel. It surely had to be even more compromised than a Lightning.
TSR-2 wasn't a small aircraft. It was nearly twice as long and nearly twice as heavy as a Tornado. It was only 10ft shorter than a Vulcan (discounting probe) with around half the Maximum Takeoff Weight of that aircraft.

TSR-2 supersonic time was not limited by Fuel, it was limited by airframe heating. Maximum time was 45 minutes. Total internal fuel load was 5,588 gallons vice c. 1600 gallons internal and c. 1000 gallons external on Tornado.

Design Mission Profiles: With 2000 lb (internal) payload, Internal Fuel only, with normal reserve fuel allowances. Standard: 100 nm at higher altitudes at Mach 1.7, 200 nm at 200 ft at Mach 0.95. 1700 nm at Mach 0.92 (1000 nm operational radius). Low Level (200 ft): 700nm radius.

Exact figures for real missions obviously depend heavily on payload and mission profile (including things like fuel allowed for potentially evading an air-to-air interception and exact diversion airfield location)

During development range was dropped to 650 nm by agreement (no idea what profile, which makes the exact figure somewhat meaningless). This was a cost saving measure, not apparently because the design figures could not be achieved, it would just cost a lot.

quicksilver-wsr
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:29 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by quicksilver-wsr » Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:15 pm

As I mentioned the last time this subject came up, a few years ago, a heavily-armed the TSR2 could carry up to 1,000 gallons of fuel externally, too.

Although the tank, or tanks, were jettisonable, the carriage of additional fuel externally inevitably brought certain operational constraints - but this would apply to any aircraft (and even moreso to a swing-wing type such as the F-111, which was touted as a TSR2 replacement).

Unarmed, in the recce role, the TSR2 could carry even more fuel - in the vacant bomb bay.

Either way, there would have been provision for air-to-air refuelling as well, had development been allowed to advance.

For a sober assessment of the TSR2, a recommended read is at:https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/ ... dsight.pdf

Nigel

Ernie Lazenby
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:43 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:48 pm

Regarding Crusader. I am really looking forward to Steve Holter's new book getting published. About 15 years ago I contacted Steve to let him know the result of some tests I did with a working model of Crusader I built. I got the boat to 'plough in' exactly the same as the real boat did. I concluded that the then accepted reason for the crash was that the front planning shoe had collapsed was incorrect. I concluded that it was due to the boat bouncing resulting in Cobb being thrown about and unable to keep the steering wheel still, the bouncing resulted in the forward placed rudder momentarily leaving the water then entering again at an angle thus causing the boat to nose dive. Extreme forces at high speed caused the accident.

I will be very interested to read if there is new information in the book that may prove my theory wrong or otherwise. I recall giving a talk at Coniston about the Crusader crash and my theory. Much shaking of the head indicating I was talking rubbish. If I am wrong that is okay, happy to admit it with my knowledge advanced, if I am correct maybe those who shook their heads and dismissed my theory will apologise- I doubt it.

I think many people forget that those who design full size vehicles use working models to help advance knowledge, they are far removed from being 'toy boats as a village idiot once called mine'.

User avatar
Mike Bull
Posts: 4619
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:57 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by Mike Bull » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:52 pm

I was under the impression that it was well accepted that the front planing surface had failed, given that it was known to be moving and had been stiffened up previously.

Ernie Lazenby
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 2:43 pm

Re: John Cobb- Crusader/Railton Special

Post by Ernie Lazenby » Fri Sep 07, 2018 8:55 pm

we will know as soon as the book is published- I am aware that since I gave that talk my theory has been taken on board as having some credence.
In the aftermath of the crash it would be easy to conclude the planning shoe had collapsed given the previous experience of problems associated with it. The biggest problem was the boat being 1000ft under water and thus any evidence to support that theory lost..

Post Reply