It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Top 10 British combat aircraft of all time

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:49 AM

posted by waynos: “Don White, there are a lot of threads like this . . 'top ten' this or that was a fad for a while and so there is a thread already for US planes: Also you distinction between the seating arrangements between UK and US Canberra's are the wrong way round, it was the original Canberra that had side by side seating, although the B-57A was unchanged, all other B-57's were tandem seaters . . Our only saving grace in this area was that US designs paid too much attention to the wilder German ideas and were subsequently rubbish, hence the B-57. [Edited by Don W]

Sorry about that, Waynos. My excuse is I am new. If I could edit my post out, I would, but it is too late. I am unaware of any “delete” capability.

You are exactly right about Canberra seating. Perhaps age is playing tricks on my memory? I worked on B47s at Hunter AFB near Savannah GA. A thing of beauty on the ground. There are not too many planes you can say that about.

I have a theory on the B45. It is a straight wing plane. It was our first jet bomber. It came on line with 4 GE J47 jet engines. Rated at 5,200 lbs. thrust. I theorize around the time of its design - early 1940s - the US had just put the 28 cylinder 4 row P&W R4360 engine into production. I believe the B45 was intended to utilize the new engine. Jets were “hung on” after becoming available. During the Korean War, B45s out of Okinawa performed photo reconnaissance and electronic surveillance over the Yalu River region. Their only advantage was altitude, certainly not speed.

I’m outta here.

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by waynos
echoblade, Yes I knew about the Ar-234, but why sorry for us Brits?

Just in response to HowlrunnerIV stating the Canberra was the world's first operational jet bomber... And possibly my evil French nature, jumping on every occasion to diminish the glory of the British Empire (ok, Kingdom... err should I say Queendom ? hehe that would be fun, UK then becomes UQ, not that easy to pronounce)

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:10 PM
think you hit the nail on the head waynos (& i always wanted to include the
TSR 2 anyway). Good job, you really know your stuff. & thanks for the support
I'm new to posting here.

I had forgotten about the Hawker 1121, why oh why do we always have to
cancel our best designs. I think government should be held accountable for
them all, from frank whittle, the miles M52 to the FOAS they have decimated
our aircraft industry at every opportunity.

But wasn't the Fairy delta 2 designed to be developed into a delta wing fighter
rather than the Concorde it influenced?

If we are including joint developed aircraft: British designed could also
include (for the engine at least): P51 Mustang, F9F, Sabre, Mig 15 - 17 Saab
tunden, Viggen, Hercules, v22 osprey, Dassult mirage's & the list is truly

The SR71 & B70 are the fastest at height but technologically best? -only at
flying high & fast. Neither could complete the TSR missions ie multi role
Canberra replacement. I think it would be suicidal if not impossible for them
to fly at Mack 1.5 100ft off the deck whilst avoiding obstacles like hills. &
also the airframes would not stand up-to the buffeting at this height for long.
-different horses for different courses. The TSR was undisputedly the most advanced
ultra low level attack bomber of the time, only comparable American design
was the F111. so best technologically advanced stands. Nobody had anything
that could catch it at low height let alone shoot it down -except possibly the
Avro Arrow & that had the same engines -the TSR2 even outran a lightning at
low level with only one engine lit, id be surprised if the sr71 or B70 could do this.
It was the most advanced low level Tactical Strike & Reconnaissance, same as Concorde was the
most advanced SST. same as the Valkyrie was the most advanced supersonic
intercontinental bomber. what i am trying to say is there all the most
advanced, just for different jobs.

sorry for the rambling back to subject.

I also think it stands to point out the aircraft that have protected British
interests when there was nothing else to do the job & therefore must be on
the list. these by my reckoning:

Sopwith camel WW1
Hawker Hurricane / Supermarine Spitfire WW2
Sea Harrier Falklands

Avro Lancaster / Handley Page Halifax WW2
Avro Vulcan / Vickers Valiant /
Handley page Victor Sues crisis, Falklands

Mosquito / Typhoon WW2
English Electric Canberra Just about everything after the second
world war with the exception of the Falklands

I have not included any aircraft from the gulf wars because i feel that had we
not been their, American aircraft would have done the job themselves
although a bit less efficiently. & before I get any American friends screaming about the
less efficient comment i mean that you would have had less aircraft to do the job if we
where not involved, not that your airforce is less efficient.

so again i have 12 in my top ten & cant get rid of any this time. man this is
harder than i thought.

also i know i am missing some truly exceptional aircraft but I simply have no
place left for them. so please help whittle down the few. for example do we
need 3 of the 4 V bombers. & what about only one from Halifax / Lancaster
which to choose ?

so i think the top 10 British aircraft are...

Powered by Rolls Royce & their subsidiaries

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 02:55 PM
donwhite, no apology needed at all, I figured you just hadn't seen the other threads as, being about American planes, they are naturally less interesting

er, I mean they have slipped further down the board

echoblade; OK, I see, I can live with that, I know what you Frenchies are like (not unlike us Brits)

Subatomic; Yes, there were two different attempts to turn the Fairey Delta 2 into a fighter, one was a simple adaptation of the design with a nose radar and two wingtip Red Tops, it would have been broadly equivalent to the Mirage III, did you also know that Marcel Dassault observed the FD 2 flight trials, which were carried out in France in 1954, he is quoted as saying 'you British could have made the Mirage yourselves if it wasn't for the silly way you go about things', a year later the first Mirage prototype emerged.

The second one was an all new design based on the FD 2 shape, it was a big twin jet, of similat size to the Mirage IV, but was a high altitude high speed interceptor, in operational terms it was sismilar to the MiG 25, very high, very fast and long range missiles, it was designed to fly at mach 2.8 at an altitude of 80,000ft, in 1956! Naturally, we canned the idea.

If you want to narrow the V bombers down, how about the Vulcan, as it was the longest in service as a bomber and the only one of the three that was equally at home at 60,000ft, or 60ft? Neither the Valiant or the Victor were suited to low level ops.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:21 PM
in the mention about great engines i would also like to say that the engines used in the TSR-2 got developed further and used in the concorde . No wonder the TSR-2 was nippy . I would love any of you guys to maybe draw a picture of a TSR-3 prototype , just for fun , and post it on here. On a totally different note i would also like to mention the Leduc 0.21 and 0.22 for being such an intreguing design! i would like to see more future fighters with 40's,50's and 60's design shapes as i think we have downgraded since then.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in