Aircraft Identification V - Page 178 - Aircraft of World War II

Graeme · 01-17-2009, 12:26 AM

Bomber-transports. (The bottom one performed bombing missions during WWII).
What are their names?...

A4K · 01-17-2009, 02:05 AM

Vickers Vimy and Vanguard the first two, last one possibly Valentia(?)

Graeme · 01-17-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A4K

Vickers Vimy and Vanguard the first two, last one possibly Valentia(?)

G'day Evan. Good Answers!

In descending order...
VERNON (Developed from the Vimy Commercial)
VICTORIA (The Vanguard was a one off civil aircraft)
VALENTIA

They all look a little similar.

All being employed by the RAF, so any civil impostors should be discounted, such as the Vimy Commercial and Vanguard. However the drawing of the Valentia could be misleading? From what I've read one of the improvements from the Victoria class was a tail wheel instead of a tail skid?

A4K · 01-18-2009, 04:55 AM

G'day Graeme!

I have very little info on them, hence the 'close guesses, but not quite rights'!

Re the valentia, according to my info ( from 'Flugzeug Typen Der Welt' published by Bechtermünz verlag, 1999) "the success of the Victoria Mk VI resulted in orders for new aircraft with this engine (- Bristol Pegasus IIL3), and 28 examples were built under the name Type 264 Valentia.
In addition 54 Victoria aircraft were refitted to Valentia standard and redesignated as such, a small number of aircraft converted with Bristol Pegasus IIM3 engines receiving the same designation.
The RAF had over 60 Valentias by the outbreak of the second world war, of which many remained in service till 1941, two machines even serving in Irak until May 1944"

Maybe the remods explain the tail wheel /skid differences ?

Graeme · 01-18-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A4K

In addition 54 Victoria aircraft were refitted to Valentia standard and redesignated as such, a small number of aircraft converted with Bristol Pegasus IIM3 engines receiving the same designation.

Maybe the remods explain the tail wheel /skid differences ?

You're right Evan. Sounds like a line from a Harry Potter movie but..."only a true Valentia has a castoring tailwheel."

The Valentia in the post above is J8231 and was a converted Victoria that served with 216 Squadron and eventually sold to the Indian Government.

Tailwheel Valentias started with K3599 and ended with K8852, twenty eight in all, as you stated.

New one...

Graeme · 01-22-2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

New one...

It was the...

Zmaj R-1

Waynos · 01-22-2009, 05:55 AM

I had no idea, at all, I'm losing my touch

Waynos · 01-22-2009, 06:04 AM

This tactical military transport, possibly the first ever with modern style rear loading ramp+doors, was supposed to be in production when reported in Flight, it wasn't, but was was it called?

Airframes · 01-22-2009, 07:51 AM

Looks a bit like an Airspeed Ambassador, a civil airliner, but with a deeper tail section. Presumably that's the loading ramp/doors.

AMCKen · 01-22-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

It was the...

Zmaj R-1

Fuselage brings to mind the P-61 center section.

Graeme · 01-22-2009, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waynos

This tactical military transport, possibly the first ever with modern style rear loading ramp+doors, was supposed to be in production when reported in Flight, it wasn't, but was was it called?

Hmmm..I smell a trick here Wayne.

It just looks too obvious as the Ambassador. If it was designed to be a "tactical military transport" then it flew as one, but it didn't look like this?

Then this must rule out the Ambassador as it was always intended (from what I've read) to be a post-war civil airliner with double the capacity (passengers) of the DC-3.

Avro (early York design?) Blackburn (there were twin engine designs for the Beverly?) Or should I just start wiping the egg off my face now?...

Waynos · 01-23-2009, 03:41 AM

Airframes and Graeme, I suppose I'll have to end it now. Yes, it does look like the Ambassador, because it was based on the same core design at the same time, 1944. The Ambassador was Arthur Hagg's Brabazon airliner offering, this, with a different, fatter, fuselage and rear loading ramp but the same wings, engines and tail (Avro York fashion) was his intended replacemenr for the RAF's Dakota's, the Ayrshire.

Reported in Flight in 1945 as 'now in production for the RAF', this was wishful thinking as it never progressed beyond mock up stage as the end of the war saw the contract terminated and Airspeed pressed on at full speed with the Ambassador instead.

Airframes · 01-23-2009, 10:30 AM

Thanks for that. I hadn't realised it started as a military requirement. The Ambassador is close to my heart, as they were the main type at Newcastle Airport when I was a young 'spotter', doing anything to get near to aircraft. They were the ex BEA 'Elizabethan' class aircraft, operated by BKS and, of course, always refered to as the 'Lizzie'. Very nice looking aeroplane.

Graeme · 01-23-2009, 04:04 PM

Maybe I'm blinded by the egg but isn't it the other way round? It was always designed to be an airliner with the Ayrshire as an afterthought? Or do the sequential design numbers not necessarily follow chronologically?

From a John Stroud article...

Waynos · 01-24-2009, 04:36 AM

Yes, the numbers do follow chronologically, Graeme. What I probably didn't write very clearly was that the Ambassador and Ayrshire were deliberately designed at the same time from a common root airframe design (hence the identical wings tail, engines etc).

Hagg drew his brabazon airliner first but he had both models in mind from the start, which is why the Ambassadors shape is so suited to a rough field military transport with its high wing and low floor. Alternative schemes with piston and turboprop power, both with 2 and 4 engines, were created for both models while still at the design stage too, hence the numbering. The Ambassador 2 with 2 RR Darts and a stretch for 8 more passengers came out of these studies but the only turbine powered model to fly was the Eland powered development prototype.

The AS.66 and 67 were not military transports, as in the article, they were civil freighter versions of the Ayrshire. The final scheme was a larger 4x Proteus stretched Ambassador designed as the AS.68. Another curiosity was a 'mini-Ambassaor', the AS.64, which was intended to be competitive with the DH Dove for the Brabazon 5b requirement.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/aircraft-identification-v-1737.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Alice - Rechercher	This thread	Refback	11-19-2006 11:10 AM

01-17-2009, 12:26 AM	#2656
Graeme Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,080	Bomber-transports. (The bottom one performed bombing missions during WWII). What are their names?...

01-17-2009, 02:05 AM	#2657
A4K Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kiwi at the back of beyond Posts: 4,505	Vickers Vimy and Vanguard the first two, last one possibly Valentia(?)

01-18-2009, 04:55 AM	#2659
A4K Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kiwi at the back of beyond Posts: 4,505	G'day Graeme! I have very little info on them, hence the 'close guesses, but not quite rights'! Re the valentia, according to my info ( from 'Flugzeug Typen Der Welt' published by Bechtermünz verlag, 1999) "the success of the Victoria Mk VI resulted in orders for new aircraft with this engine (- Bristol Pegasus IIL3), and 28 examples were built under the name Type 264 Valentia. In addition 54 Victoria aircraft were refitted to Valentia standard and redesignated as such, a small number of aircraft converted with Bristol Pegasus IIM3 engines receiving the same designation. The RAF had over 60 Valentias by the outbreak of the second world war, of which many remained in service till 1941, two machines even serving in Irak until May 1944" Maybe the remods explain the tail wheel /skid differences ?

01-22-2009, 05:55 AM	#2662
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,285	I had no idea, at all, I'm losing my touch

01-22-2009, 06:04 AM	#2663
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,285	This tactical military transport, possibly the first ever with modern style rear loading ramp+doors, was supposed to be in production when reported in Flight, it wasn't, but was was it called?

01-22-2009, 07:51 AM	#2664
Airframes Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15,893	Looks a bit like an Airspeed Ambassador, a civil airliner, but with a deeper tail section. Presumably that's the loading ramp/doors.

01-23-2009, 03:41 AM	#2667
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,285	Airframes and Graeme, I suppose I'll have to end it now. Yes, it does look like the Ambassador, because it was based on the same core design at the same time, 1944. The Ambassador was Arthur Hagg's Brabazon airliner offering, this, with a different, fatter, fuselage and rear loading ramp but the same wings, engines and tail (Avro York fashion) was his intended replacemenr for the RAF's Dakota's, the Ayrshire. Reported in Flight in 1945 as 'now in production for the RAF', this was wishful thinking as it never progressed beyond mock up stage as the end of the war saw the contract terminated and Airspeed pressed on at full speed with the Ambassador instead.

01-23-2009, 10:30 AM	#2668
Airframes Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 15,893	Thanks for that. I hadn't realised it started as a military requirement. The Ambassador is close to my heart, as they were the main type at Newcastle Airport when I was a young 'spotter', doing anything to get near to aircraft. They were the ex BEA 'Elizabethan' class aircraft, operated by BKS and, of course, always refered to as the 'Lizzie'. Very nice looking aeroplane.

01-23-2009, 04:04 PM	#2669
Graeme Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,080	Maybe I'm blinded by the egg but isn't it the other way round? It was always designed to be an airliner with the Ayrshire as an afterthought? Or do the sequential design numbers not necessarily follow chronologically? From a John Stroud article...

01-24-2009, 04:36 AM	#2670
Waynos Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,285	Yes, the numbers do follow chronologically, Graeme. What I probably didn't write very clearly was that the Ambassador and Ayrshire were deliberately designed at the same time from a common root airframe design (hence the identical wings tail, engines etc). Hagg drew his brabazon airliner first but he had both models in mind from the start, which is why the Ambassadors shape is so suited to a rough field military transport with its high wing and low floor. Alternative schemes with piston and turboprop power, both with 2 and 4 engines, were created for both models while still at the design stage too, hence the numbering. The Ambassador 2 with 2 RR Darts and a stretch for 8 more passengers came out of these studies but the only turbine powered model to fly was the Eland powered development prototype. The AS.66 and 67 were not military transports, as in the article, they were civil freighter versions of the Ayrshire. The final scheme was a larger 4x Proteus stretched Ambassador designed as the AS.68. Another curiosity was a 'mini-Ambassaor', the AS.64, which was intended to be competitive with the DH Dove for the Brabazon 5b requirement.