1960's EE & Shorts P17D Concept Animation

[CoffmanStarter]

BAe Systems have animated a few concept designs from their archives ... this is particularly interesting.

56 jet engines to achieve vertical flight for the piggyback ...

Fighter Jet Take-Off Platform - YouTube

The Fighter Jet Take-Off Platform was a concept platform that would rise vertically from the ground, and allow an aircraft to take-off from its back -- allowing planes to operate from small airstrips or narrow forest clearings.

English Electric developed the P17A jet to fulfill the purpose of a tactical strike and reconnaissance jet, and rather than attaching a heavy vertical take-off and landing system to the aircraft, they collaborated with Shorts, who created the P17D -- a platform that would stay steady above the ground and allow the P17A to take-off from its surface.

With no less than 56 jet engines, the P17D gave the P17A the desired effect of being able to take off from tight spaces. On its own, the P17D would also have been able to fill the role of a VTOL freight transport, able to deliver equipment and supplies to less-accessible locations.

Thank goodness the Harrier made it off the drawing board :ok:

More here ...

BAe 60's Concepts (http://www.itv.com/news/2013-06-16/bae-systems-reveal-secret-1960s-r-d-that-never-made-it-off-the-ground/)


Best ...

Coff.

[Pontius Navigator]

allowing planes to operate from small airstrips or narrow forest clearings.

Another one-trick pony.

How did it get to the short runway/forest clearing in the first place?

After launch the P17D would have had to retire to a larger airfield and await the arrival of its playmate. The GE required to lift the fighter on to the lifter would have been something else again.

Another one-trick pony was the Vulcan replacement. So heavy that it needed an 16-wheel undercarriage which was too big to retract. The plan was to jettison half the wheels on take off. Quite how they planned recovery of these bogies departing up wind at 165 kts was not addressed.

[dragartist]

Now I was still is short trousers in the 60's.
I recall a similar concept to the jumping jeep being promoted by Bell at a Farnborough Air show. Would probably be this century 2000 and something. they gave me a baseball cap I still have with the Team Hawk logo. Appears to have two big fans in tandem. Did it ever work? Who knows, who cares! I never was too sure which way around one should wear a baseball cap these days.

edit. Yes it was 2006. project called X Hawk. More Google shows Israelis had something similar in 2011

[BEagle]

The flying jeep was around in the late 1950s:

4SERvwWALOM

Piasecki VZ-8.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bit like the jet pack that was then demonstrated by James Bond. I think the thing all these 'jump over obstacle' type thingies have in common is they also jump into the enemies view.

The Segway is probably great for policing but again just raised the infantry man in to full view.

[Lima Juliet]

Why did they envisage the P17D going to 2,000ft? Why waste all that fuel and time? Why not 500ft MSD? I can't imagine that the brains of 1960s thought about this for long without sorting out basics like this, but then again this is W O'S...

LJ

[Satellite_Driver]

I first read about the P.17A/P.17D combination in Derek Wood's Project Cancelled (of which there was a copy in the DSGT library at Cranditz when I was a trainee EngO). It's covered in much more detail in Damien Burke's TSR2 - Britain's Lost Bomber with some nice diagrams and discussion of the operating concept. Apparently ground handling would have involved 'kneeling' the P.17D, bolting on some ramps, and winching the P.17A on board from the front. Just about practical I suppose if you have firm ground (or a lot of PSP) and plenty of manoeuvring space...

The really worrying aspect of the design? That dorsal blister on the P.17D - it's the cockpit. If things had gone pear-shaped during takeoff or landing, or at any other time when the P.17A was mated, then the P.17D crew wouldn't have had a chance.

[Kitbag]

but then again this is W O'S...



Nice dig, but very inaccurate, this was well before BAE

[CoffmanStarter]

Leon ...

I can't imagine that the Brains of 1960s thought about this for long without sorting out basics like this ...

I think that was the problem ... the then Design Team had been watching too much Gerry Anderson :}

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00141/SNN2331D_141885a.jpg

Interesting nonetheless :ok:

Coff.