Super Sonic Harrier - HS P.1154

[CoffmanStarter]

Guys ...

On the back of the recent splendid thread running on the Lightning v Harrier, along with input from the F4 community, it got me thinking about "What If" we had the Super Sonic Harrier ?

I understand the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 was a planned supersonic V/STOL fighter aircraft. Developed alongside the subsonic and smaller Hawker Siddeley P.1127/Kestrel, the P.1154 was derived from the P.1150. The P.1150 proposal did not meet NATO Basic Military Requirement 3 and, consequently, the P.1154 was born. The P.1154 was to have been a Mach 2-capable platform which retained plenum chamber burning previously designed for the P.1150.

Meanwhile, HSA considered modifying the airframe for a joint specification for an aircraft by the RAF and Royal Navy. I understand that the RAF and Royal Navy during 1961 and 1965 harmonised specifications to preserve design commonality. However, the RAF's desired configuration was to take precedence over that of the Royal Navy's. A number of proposals were submitted – at one stage, a twin-Spey design was considered, then rejected.

Sadly, following the Labour government coming to power in 1965, the project was cancelled. The result being that the Royal Navy acquired the F-4, while the RAF continued with the development of the P.1127 (RAF), leading to the successful Harrier family.

So had we had the P.1154 SSH how would we have used it ?

It seems certain that it's role would have been different to that of the P.1127 Family of Jump Jets.

Maybe John F might be able to elucidate if he's on frequency ...


Best regards ...

Coff.

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh good. Another Harrier thread. :{

Something about plenum chambers, IIRC. A way to burn the already limited fuel even faster. I doubt it would have given birth to the later, much better, mark of Harrier.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Some interesting details here:

The P.1154 story (http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_p1154.htm)

5,000 people directly employed on developing it in 1965 !

[con-pilot]

Was the Harrier always called a Harrier.

Reason why I ask, is when we were living in England, my father took me to the Farnborough Airshow when the Harrier was first flown in the airshow. But for some reason I think it was called by a different name?

Am I right, or is it old age? :p

I know I could look it up, but that is boring and usually here on Pprune the facts are supported by other little known facts and stories from the people that were there.

[Dominator2]

Con pilot

Your right there was a different name for the aircraft in development. I'm sure there are many former Harrier mates would love to bore you with all of the facts and figures about the Kestrel, the prototype Harrier.

[Wholigan]

Kestrel .

[BEagle]

con-pilot, one of the early P1127 developments was the 'Kestrel'.

CoffmanStarter, JF is emphatically NOT a fan of PCB. However, the hovering bolleaux of the puffer jet, whilst fine for airshow tricks and potentially for German supermarket car parks after the balloon had gone up, wasn't really part of the proposed P1154 SOP which assumed STO and rolling VL...... So PCB would rarely have been needed. Which would also have been OK for the FAA had P1154 been on CVA01 - but probably not for the dear little 'through deck cruisers' which came a decade after CVA01 had been scrapped....:hmm:

The RAF was content to sacrifice P1154 in order to secure TSR2. In the end they lost both.

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks chaps ...

RAFEngO74to09 ... that article is most interesting .... thanks. BEagle I can see why we went with the TSR2 but as with all things you just wonder what the SSH might have turned in to.

A twin Spey variant .. PHWOAR !

I'm sure Courtney would have wanted a go on such a beast :ok:

Still interested in further comment ... I suspect quite a bit of design compromise might have been necessary for, say, the SSH to have been a credible ADV ?

Coff.

[mike-wsm]

The test piece, a Harrier with added plenum chamber burning, has recently been acquired by the Helicopter Museum here in WsM. It is not fully representative of the BS100 front nozzle design but certainly worth a look.

I seem to recall the BS100 is very wide and would have given the 1154 substantial frontal area. Not sure if it was made viable. RRHT used to have a complete engine, not sure where it is now.

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks Mike ...

It's sad that so much of our, then, cutting edge aviation technology ends up forgotten.

It's sickening that the TSR2 programme has been reduced to rivet sales :{

Coff.

[Seaking93]

There is a BS100 engine on display at the FAAM, just behind the P1127

[Lightning Mate]

Ooh good. Another Harrier thread. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

Oh no.............:eek:

[Milo Minderbinder]

John Farley's post #515 and #518 in http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-26.html#post7144134 are explanatory

[ex-fast-jets]

Excuse me interrupting - but - the GR1/3 was supersonic!

Never tried it in the 5/7!!

:}:E:suspect::eek::\:sad::8:rolleyes:

[CoffmanStarter]

Bomber ... By design or by happenstance ?

[noprobs]

Excuse me interrupting - but - the GR1/3 was supersonic!

Memory cells are once again activated. Towards the end of '75, the Belize alert state was for the first time relaxed enough to permit A Flt of 1(F) Sqn to venture out on a cayes trip. The idyllic tranquility of the tiny tropical island (Goff's or English Caye?) was disturbed by the efforts of a certain B Flt pilot showing that he was still at work, and how fast the jet could go. Now who was that ......? Was he called Boomer, or something like that? Fortunately, there was at that time no building with glass windows there. :=

[walbut]

Getting the back end of a Phantom to hang together with the battering it got from the reheated exhaust of a J79 or Spey was pretty challenging. Getting 2/3 of the fuselage of the P1154 to stay in one piece getting similar punishment from the PCB on the front nozzles would have been even more difficult. The equipment inside would have had a pretty hard time as well. I would not like to have to sign up to a reliability guarantee for the project.

[ex-fast-jets]

Your memory is beginning to worry me!!

Do I need to speak to my lawyer??

[noprobs]

Bomber,

You know my past, too, so the principle of MAD could apply. I'll be quiet now.

[cuefaye]

Ooh good. Another Harrier thread. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif


Oh no.............http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif


Better than another WIWOL durge. Derring-does of chappies flying a totally useless so-called combat aircraft. Sporty yes, but do c'mon chaps, it was a waste of taxpayers' money. Newt might disagree, but he knows, really. Contributed little to the Cold War, aside from egos.

Sorry for thread creap

[BEagle]

Derring-does of chappies flying a totally useless so-called combat aircraft. Sporty yes, but do c'mon chaps, it was a waste of taxpayers' money.

Are you referring to Hawker's little puffer jet?

[ex-fast-jets]

You say:

Are you referring to Hawker's little puffer jet?

The Harrier - RN and RAF - did a quite reasonable combat job in '82.

It was the first opportunity for most of us from my era to test ourselves in combat, although recent people have had many more opportunities.

Don't know what your role in that conflict was, but clearly you have an expert opinion about all that did participate.

So what exactly is your point?

Getting serious in an otherwise banter zone - but there are times and places.

[Wholigan]

Bomber oh Bomber my friend, I am sooooo disappointed.

YOU BIT like a starved trout matey. :E;)

(By the way, we need to have a beer or two sometime. I'd really like that.)

[ex-fast-jets]

Sorry Rog - I'll go get my santa hat and coat!!

Have a good Christmas!!

[BEagle]

Some kills are just sooooo easy.........;)

Anyway, compliments of the season to you all (to be PC.....).

[CoffmanStarter]

cuefaye ...

At a practical/economic level you are probably right about the Lightning ... but we shouldn't underestimate the deterrent impact of the UK being able to scramble a man with some "teeth" to keep the Ruskies company in the early 60's. Not only that ... but the production line also helped with employment and the developing of our national aerospace/technology "Brain Bank" ... But that's just my personal view :ok:

Happy Christmas all ...

Coff.

[Heathrow Harry]

what was the fuel capacity of the P1154? I can't think it had much range.............

[BEagle]

what was the fuel capacity of the P1154? I can't think it had much range.............

1300 imp gallons internal, to be supplemented when required with a pair of 300 imp gall external tanks. For ferrying, the 300 imp gall tanks would be replaced by a pair of 400 imp gall tanks, a 200 imp gall centreline tank and an AAR probe.

Under ISA/SL conditions with a 2000 lb load and 2 x 300 gall externals, following a STO (rather than a rolling VTO), the aircraft was predicted to have a lo-lo radius of action of 400 nm.

[mike-wsm]

...national aerospace/technology "Brain Bank"...

....therafter resident in California. We left a sign at Heathrow saying "Will the last Engineer to leave please turn off the light."

[CoffmanStarter]

Very true Mike :(

[Squirrel 41]

Does this help?

Harrier Test Rig Arrival (http://www.hmfriends.org.uk/harrierpcb.htm)

S41

[CoffmanStarter]

Thanks S41 ...

PCB seems a good way to melt engines fast :uhoh:

[CoffmanStarter]

Has anyone got any more on the P1154 ? John F are you on frequency ?

[cuefaye]

BEagle


Are you referring to Hawker's little puffer jet?


No - see Coffer's comment on my banter ------

[BEagle]

:hmm:......

Yes, the little puffer jet served us well, particularly from the small carriers (aka 'through deck cruisers') forced on the RN following cancellation of CVA01....:mad:

But the Lightning served the UK very well indeed - for years and years beyond its originally anticipated OSD.

Both British designs through and through, but now sadly consigned to history. Notwithstanding its meagre endurance, the Sea Harrier F/A2 with AIM-120 and Link16 was a superb interceptor.

[cuefaye]

I'd delete 'the very well indeed' bit. Very sporty, and thus much loved by its operators, but operability? Payload, range and endurance - well below par, no question.

But it was British, filled a need (on paper at least), kept industrial bums on seats, maintained design and hangar skills, and was much admired at airshows - Tick. Capability - Cross.

[Haraka]

...and named specifically by Viktor Belenko in his 1976 debrief as an aircraft the Foxbats were very wary of........(allegedly :))