Interestingly a photo of this aircraft in the scrap compound at Farnborough show it with the cone missing, perhaps already doing service at the garden centre. http://www.thevictorassociation.org.uk/?p=432
By: XF940
- 19th April 2012 at 13:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interestingly a photo of this aircraft in the scrap compound at Farnborough show it with the cone missing, perhaps already doing service at the garden centre. Richard
IIRC, the tailcone was removed and blanked off flat for some of the engine trials - not sure if it was the Concorde Olympus or the Tornado engine nacelle fit. Presumably it wasn't sufficiently robust to survive the jet efflux, or perhaps it interferred too much with the efflux for the tests.
I have an old/period small (about 6" long) metal model of XA903 with 'an' engine nacelle slung under, and that is flat across the tail where the tailcone would have been.
By: aeronut 2008
- 20th April 2012 at 20:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is why I thought it looked 'missile'. ATTACH]204884[/ATTACH]
I know its only a drawing but it gives some indication of the size, and the shape is right.
By: pagen01
- 20th April 2012 at 20:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think I would concur with that aeronut, the cone looks too lightly constructed to be an aircraft nose cone to me, and the shape and scale seem right to the plans you've attached - must be a rare old item though?
By: Vega ECM
- 20th April 2012 at 23:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Way to small to be Black Arrow (i.e. picture above) and not split in the right way. Wrong material for Polaris which was ply wood. Early Javalin I reckon.
By: hampden98
- 21st April 2012 at 13:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some closeups.
The cone construction.
The ring at base.
BTW as to it being lightly constructed. I've no idea about aircraft nose cones but trying to tilt it
shows it's pretty solid. Tapping the cone feels quite dense. It's not flimsy or tinny.
By: bazv
- 21st April 2012 at 14:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps the only way to positively ID it would be to turn it over on its side (onto mattress/bubblewrap maybe) and see if there is a data/mod plate inside the metal ring.
Any part number/insp stamp code should be fairly conclusive!
By: pagen01
- 21st April 2012 at 17:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Completely wrong shape, size, section, and construction for either Canberra proto or Attacker, both of which had metal construction nose cones and no radar.
I'm not quite swayed by early Javelin either, though the diameter wouldn't be far off.
Posts: 2,024
By: D1566 - 19th April 2012 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did the owner say how he had acquired it? That may give some clue ...
Posts: 188
By: Sven - 19th April 2012 at 11:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think the end's pointy enough for a javelin either.
Posts: 1,216
By: pogno - 19th April 2012 at 12:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It looks as if a couple of different shape cones were used on B1 Vulcans, the one fitted to XA903 has the more curved sides. http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group_presentation/903bs.htm
Interestingly a photo of this aircraft in the scrap compound at Farnborough show it with the cone missing, perhaps already doing service at the garden centre. http://www.thevictorassociation.org.uk/?p=432
Richard
Posts: 348
By: XF940 - 19th April 2012 at 13:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC, the tailcone was removed and blanked off flat for some of the engine trials - not sure if it was the Concorde Olympus or the Tornado engine nacelle fit. Presumably it wasn't sufficiently robust to survive the jet efflux, or perhaps it interferred too much with the efflux for the tests.
I have an old/period small (about 6" long) metal model of XA903 with 'an' engine nacelle slung under, and that is flat across the tail where the tailcone would have been.
Posts: 521
By: Bunsen Honeydew - 19th April 2012 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It does have a Javelin look about it, how about one of the less pointy prototype radomes?
Posts: 1,528
By: aeronut 2008 - 20th April 2012 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is why I thought it looked 'missile'. ATTACH]204884[/ATTACH]
I know its only a drawing but it gives some indication of the size, and the shape is right.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 20th April 2012 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think I would concur with that aeronut, the cone looks too lightly constructed to be an aircraft nose cone to me, and the shape and scale seem right to the plans you've attached - must be a rare old item though?
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 20th April 2012 at 23:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Way to small to be Black Arrow (i.e. picture above) and not split in the right way. Wrong material for Polaris which was ply wood. Early Javalin I reckon.
Posts: 2,536
By: hampden98 - 21st April 2012 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some closeups.
The cone construction.
The ring at base.
BTW as to it being lightly constructed. I've no idea about aircraft nose cones but trying to tilt it
shows it's pretty solid. Tapping the cone feels quite dense. It's not flimsy or tinny.
Posts: 8,983
By: TonyT - 21st April 2012 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't the prototype canberra a solid nose?
Posts: 2,024
By: D1566 - 21st April 2012 at 14:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wondered if it might have been Supermarine Attacker but its not quite ...
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 21st April 2012 at 14:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Perhaps the only way to positively ID it would be to turn it over on its side (onto mattress/bubblewrap maybe) and see if there is a data/mod plate inside the metal ring.
Any part number/insp stamp code should be fairly conclusive!
rgds baz
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 21st April 2012 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Completely wrong shape, size, section, and construction for either Canberra proto or Attacker, both of which had metal construction nose cones and no radar.
I'm not quite swayed by early Javelin either, though the diameter wouldn't be far off.
Posts: 2,357
By: Jackonicko - 20th June 2015 at 01:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There were lots of Canberras with non-standard nose radomes - like VN828 and WG789, for example. It does look like something I've seen on a Canberra.
Posts: 2,536
By: hampden98 - 20th June 2015 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well I hope it went to a good home. Last time I passed the Garden Center it was gone.
But at least preserved in pictures.