David Herbert Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 On 14/02/2018 at 8:07 PM, fv1609 said: The armour was to extend the full width & length of the vehicle. The missiles were to be fitted to launcher rails that would swing out from a pair of sliding doors on each side of the vehicle. These sliding doors were to be waterproof when closed to allow wading. Re reading this again, and not knowing the original text, it occured to me that the sliding doors could fit this description if they were fitted in either side of the roof of the vehicle, and the launcher swing out of the vehicle in an upwards rather than sideways direction, as with FV1620. If the loader/s stood between the engine enclosure and the launch rail , it is possible that someone thought that there was room to reload from there. Can I suggest though that there is a big difference between designing the best OW launch vehicle based on the FV420 series and doing historical research on the actual proposed design. If the FV426 never got beyond a brief specification of what was hoped for, trying to draw anything that is intended to have historical meaning is just speculation. That may well be quite fun but designing something that 'might' be what the FV426 would have looked like if it had ever been designed is about as usefull as designing what, say, a Tiger 4 might have looked like. I may be misunderstanding your original brief which I thought was researching the original 1950's project. If so I apologise - there is no reason why you shouldn't design anything you want. Have fun ! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 David it wasn't upwards as the FVRDE Spec required: "A pair of missile exit doors shall be provided on each side of the vehicle. They shall be of the sliding type and shall be operated manually by rack and pinion. Provision shall be made for rendering the doors watertight for wading and flotation in the minimum time possible. They shall be designed to be proof against bullet 'splash'." I'm not sure of the context of how the ultimate drawing will be used. But the Report No.38 to which I referred indicates that three vehicles were built. I don't have that previous page but notes indicate that as the result of a meeting in Dec 1958 the vehicle was accepted on hot weather trials in the Middle East subject to some modification. Three vehicles were modified & flown to the Middle East in May 1959. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Herbert Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 If three vehicles were built there will be photos and trial reports on them, probably at Bovington. These '50s projects were thoroughly recorded if you can just find where the records are. I suspect that the three vehicles in the hot weather trials were FV421s - there were a couple of photos of them in BlueBelle's thread (page 9 or 10) about Libia & Tripolitania in the Research section but I think she removed them when she got cross about people pinching her photos without asking. Certainly the FV421s were modified quite considerably as the various trials progressed, some finishing up with virtually an early FV432 power train, though with the B81 engine and Allison auto gearbox in line on the centre line of the vehicle instead of in the LH front corner. The more powerfull engine in turn required a different steering gearbox and stronger, rubber bushed track which were carried over into the prototype FV430s. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fv1609 Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 David I've gone through everything they hold at Bovington & Chris Gibson has done the PRO. That's assuming everything is filed correctly, most museum libraries I find stuff wrongly attributed & mighty difficult it is to get it corrected. But things drift into archives from time to time so we may get lucky one day & I always hope something might turn up from Lizzie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 I've had a hunt for the MVEE trials reports but they seem to have gone astray when Chertsey closed. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk59 Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 (edited) On 17/02/2018 at 10:43 AM, fv1609 said: Derek I can't envisage that vertically opening doors would have enough room unless they jut out above the vehicle profile & down to the track area. It would be a lot of work for one man to wind up the lower door to close up or to raise the upper door when opening up. A better division of labour & time, would be the rear loader winding his horizontally mounted door back & forth with the front loader winding his door in a similar manner. The effort for opening & closing doors would be the same & for each operator & presumably faster than just one man doing the work. This Spec was Jan 1959, what would be interesting is to get hold of MoS Fighting Vehicles Division, Development Liaison Report 38 Sept 1959. I have some pages that cover OW in relation to FV1620 being the launch vehicle (with possibility of Malkara use as well) & LWB Land Rover. Doubt was expressed that Ferret for the control vehicle to due weight & volume of the control equipment. This is on page 35, I suspect FV426 may have had some coverage on page 34. It should not be assumed FV426 would have been abandoned by now because alternative launchers were being planned. This is because FV426 was required for a Global War Role, whereas airportable launchers like FV1620 & Land Rovers were needed for limited local warfare. 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 Edited February 25, 2018 by Dirk59 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.