Jump to content

Dirk59

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Hi Clive I agree with you regarding "report 38" - I too would have liked to have gotten hold of a copy. With regards to the rack and pinion operation, if the R&P operation was in a 1:1 force ratio I could see where you'e coming from and that would present problems with weighty 12mm thick doors, however the weight of the doors in a vertical configuration can be largely negated by the use of a simple R&P gearing arrangement ( see photo ). This would in turn reduce the workload of the operator and make the vertical doors a viable proposition. The other points in favour of the vertical arrangement is that: a. they could withstand battle damage / warping better than larger doors and b. when closed during missile launch would provide better protection ( narrower aperture ) from thrust exhaust gases . In the end, i've gone with the vertical arrangement and the client is ok with it. Unfortunately I'm prevented from showing the finished illustration due to client confidentiality but I've attached a rough that was used during an earlier part of the process ( yes, I know the missile looks more like a Malkara, lol! ) I'm extremely grateful to you and the others who contributed to my understanding of the launch system and without whose contributions would have made the job a good deal more difficult. Plus it made the project more enjoyable. Thank you. I'll speak to the client about getting you and the others a mention in the credits. I have more drawings on the way so I suspect I'll need your ( and other ) invaluable input if that's ok so I'd be extremely grateful again for any help and assistance that can be given. Best regards Derek
  2. Clive I must look out for Eric / shorland via internet, etc. Be interested to see him in that setting. It has occurred to me that the best arrangement for the missile doors would be to open /shut vertically rather than laterally. There are three advantages that occur to me: There would be even less exertion required to operate the doors. Doors could be opened by one operator, rather than two. The arrangement would provide better protection from missile motor discharge, and/or enemy fire. An oblong aperture would provide easier ingress/egress of the missile launch system. There are more advantages but having thought of them I can't remember what they were. Anyways, what do you think? Derek
  3. Hi Clive I think you're absolutely correct. I've revised the drg. It's a general concept. If it goes forward, detail will be added. As usual, your observations are gratefully accepted! As for Eric Tuckey, I never met him. He was probably before my time. What dept. was he in? Derek
  4. Yes David, I agree with most of what you mentioned. The main difference between the 420 and the 426, and it's probably moot, is that according to the spec, "structure shall be full width for the total length of the vehicle". So it's progressing towards the 432 configuration. I've revised tte drawing and would welcome your input. The drg is at the general concept stage - not everything has been included. If ok, detail will be added. I contacted Bovington, however help was limited and further assistance attracted fees, which unfortunately I had to decline. Derek
  5. Lol. Correct! Interesting "What If...."
  6. Hi Clive I wondered about the ability of the loaders to withstand the exhaust plume of a missile launch which would have been more or less within 2 to 3 feet of their position. There's no mention of a cutout in the doors to accommodate the launch system arm upon which the missiles would rest, therefore, there would have to be a gap between the door edge and the outer shell of the vehicle, and therefore, during a launch, a jet of superheated gasses would inevitably have been forced into the loaders' position with unthinkable results! I suppose it might have made great toast!! In any case, I hope that you can better appreciate how I arrived at my interpretation. I did download a copy of your Shorland/Land Rover doc ( looks real good! ) and will get to read it shortly. I'm particularly interested in the Shoreland as I spent a fair portion of my engineering / tech pubs career in Bombardier, Belfast which I'm sure you're aware is the former Shorts. In the meantime the information gleaned from our discussion has been immensely helpful and I'm indebted to you and now that I know for certain that the FV426 proposal was pie-in-the-sky I'll redraw it ( I always had an ambition to do something in science fiction anyway!! ) Cheers Derek PS Did you know that the Royal Navy took nuclear mines to the Falklands war?
  7. Hi Clive, Thanks for that. Yes I read the information that you mentioned in the spec, however, my engineering experience came to the fore I thinking "they cannot be serious!" - manually operated sliding doors from which protrude missile launchers just seemed fantastical. So I interpreted the spec like so, to reflect what I hoped would be a contemporary approach to tracked missile launcher design. But I will revisit the spec again and run down a comparison with your comments. I've no doubt you're correct*. The drawing served its purpose in that when you work from a spec without engineering drawings anything's possible but it does provide an opportunity to firm up in one's mind what may be and what may not be correct to discuss and amend accordingly. Apologies for the poor reproduction - the original pic was pin sharp so something must have gotten lost in transfer. Rgds Derek. * then it's no wonder the idea was scrapped! Whitehall mandarins must have been watching too much Gerry Anderson! ;-)
  8. Further to conversation yesterday, Clive, here's rough of the proposed drawing of FV426 Orange William Launcher as per spec. 9243. Comments welcome. ( Just a note: ultimately any drawings relating to this topic remain the property of my client and/or myself. Reproduction by permission only, thankyou ).
  9. Hello Clive Completely understand re: Chris' drawings. The only way to see them is to ask him and then it's up to him. But I still do appreciate the help I've been given so far so thank you. So, would you be interested to look at my illustration and comment on it? Best regards Derek
  10. Hello Clive Fantastic information, thankyou. I also have to make a concept drawing of the FV426 and I was wondering if I might run it by you for your opinion before I submit it to the client? I certainly would welcome it. It would also be great to be able to see Chris Gibson's rendering, although I don't know if this is possible. Are you ever in contact with him, Clive? If so, could you ask him? Don't worry if it's not possible. Nothing beats a try! Lol In the meantime I'll check the PRO link and hopefully come up with something. Cool avatar and cool coincidence too, eh? Best regards Derek
  11. Hi Richard, Thanks for your reply. New to the site so I expect there to be some errors in my posting. You're correct about the vehicle being 1950s. Not sure, but don't think the vehicle got past R&D stage, but could be wrong. Could you perhaps suggest a more appropriate forum to post to? Best regards Derek
  12. Hi Andy, I'm an illustrator of military equipment and I've had a request to do one of the FV426. I thought about Clive but I'm not sure how to contact him as I'm new to this site and still feeling my way, lol. Rgds Derek
  13. Hi Would anyone have any pics, drawings, specs of the British Army FV426, Carrier, Tracked, Launcher: Orange William missile system? I'm doing some illustration work on this vehicle and a thorough search on the WW2 has produced zilch! So I'm hoping that someone here might be able to help. Thankyou
  14. Hi Would anyone have any pics, drawings, specs of the British Army FV426, Carrier, Tracked, Launcher: Orange William missile system? I'm doing some illustration work on this vehicle and a thorough search on the WW2 has produced zilch! So I'm hoping that someone here might be able to help. Thankyou
×
×
  • Create New...