Saunders Roe SR-53
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saunders Roe SR-53
Sorry this isnt a real TP question, but Im hoping some of the Brits here maybe able to help.
I had no idea that the SR 53 even exsisted untill watching a show on the History channel the other night.
Any info on this aircraft would be greatly appreciated, particularly with reguard to the rocket motor. My limited knowledge of the aircraft indicates that the Rocket was a combination Kerosene/Hydrogen Peroxide. To my knowledge this is the only one of its type to be built. I have heard some horror stories of the reaction that can occur when these two are mixed, so Im curious as to how this was achieved.
And a second question off topic. Why was the British government so keen to knock out its own aerospace industry. i mean the list of aircraft cancelled by the gov is mind boggling, and it seems ususally just when its about ready to fly.
I had no idea that the SR 53 even exsisted untill watching a show on the History channel the other night.
Any info on this aircraft would be greatly appreciated, particularly with reguard to the rocket motor. My limited knowledge of the aircraft indicates that the Rocket was a combination Kerosene/Hydrogen Peroxide. To my knowledge this is the only one of its type to be built. I have heard some horror stories of the reaction that can occur when these two are mixed, so Im curious as to how this was achieved.
And a second question off topic. Why was the British government so keen to knock out its own aerospace industry. i mean the list of aircraft cancelled by the gov is mind boggling, and it seems ususally just when its about ready to fly.
I had the privilege to go to a talk the other day by Dick Stratton, who ran the flight testing of the SR53 and also I think was on that programme you watched. Dick didn't go into the internals much on the SR53, but the impression I got was that the two chemicals were fed through a catalyst grille which ensured a controlled reaction at the right mixing level rather than using direct combustion.
Secondly - why was the British government so keen to destroy it's own industry? Well, frankly it still is - so far as I can tell it's some combination of:-
- Heavy pressure from the Americans who are far better at protectionism than we are (hence the cancellation of the TSR-2 to buy the F111, and then we didn't!)
- Alternating governments who either believed utterly in workers rights, or utterly in accountancy - whilst neither appreciated that neither has any hope if you don't have the national technological base to work from.
- A British political establishment that rarely includes anybody technically trained. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't in my lifetime ever been a British science minister with a science degree ! (We had one a few years ago with a history degree, who proudly claimed that he had at university done a study of the history of science in the middle ages.)
That said the SR53 was a victim of a particular piece of UK government stupidity, which was a 1957 defence "white paper". This did some good (?) things such as reducing the size of standing army and ending national service - so that many people were able to return to work in industry. Unfortunately Duncan Sandys, the British defence minister of the time had been persuaded that the future lay in guided missiles - the paper confirmed that the RAF would never need a new fighter after the "Supersonic P1" (Lightning) - and thus cancelled everything else.
To this day, I believe that young British aerospace engineers when they set out on their careers are often given a wax model of Duncan Sandys and a pack of pins.
G
Genghis the increasingly political.
Secondly - why was the British government so keen to destroy it's own industry? Well, frankly it still is - so far as I can tell it's some combination of:-
- Heavy pressure from the Americans who are far better at protectionism than we are (hence the cancellation of the TSR-2 to buy the F111, and then we didn't!)
- Alternating governments who either believed utterly in workers rights, or utterly in accountancy - whilst neither appreciated that neither has any hope if you don't have the national technological base to work from.
- A British political establishment that rarely includes anybody technically trained. To the best of my knowledge there hasn't in my lifetime ever been a British science minister with a science degree ! (We had one a few years ago with a history degree, who proudly claimed that he had at university done a study of the history of science in the middle ages.)
That said the SR53 was a victim of a particular piece of UK government stupidity, which was a 1957 defence "white paper". This did some good (?) things such as reducing the size of standing army and ending national service - so that many people were able to return to work in industry. Unfortunately Duncan Sandys, the British defence minister of the time had been persuaded that the future lay in guided missiles - the paper confirmed that the RAF would never need a new fighter after the "Supersonic P1" (Lightning) - and thus cancelled everything else.
To this day, I believe that young British aerospace engineers when they set out on their careers are often given a wax model of Duncan Sandys and a pack of pins.
G
Genghis the increasingly political.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaced
Watched the launch of two flights of SR-53 from BD.
Close encounters were on need to know basis so only managed a brief walk around..
Would have been interested in the propulsion as I was involved in tests on the Super Sprite rocket assist take off units for the Valiant at the time. These used the same fuels - HTP and kerosene as were used for the SR-53. HTP = High Test Peroxide.
Cannot recall the thrust produced for the SR-53 or how long the rocket burned. Anyone know?
"My" Super Sprites mounted inboard of the Valiant engines and were recoverable by parachutes after take off. Each delivered about 4,000 pnds of thrust for 50 seconds. After burn out there was a nitrogen purging system to get rid of any residual HTP.
First Valiant Super Sprite launch was the last flight of the second prototype WP-215 which came very close to terminating three of us on board when the main spar came apart at AUW following a measured take off.
Watched the launch of two flights of SR-53 from BD.
Close encounters were on need to know basis so only managed a brief walk around..
Would have been interested in the propulsion as I was involved in tests on the Super Sprite rocket assist take off units for the Valiant at the time. These used the same fuels - HTP and kerosene as were used for the SR-53. HTP = High Test Peroxide.
Cannot recall the thrust produced for the SR-53 or how long the rocket burned. Anyone know?
"My" Super Sprites mounted inboard of the Valiant engines and were recoverable by parachutes after take off. Each delivered about 4,000 pnds of thrust for 50 seconds. After burn out there was a nitrogen purging system to get rid of any residual HTP.
First Valiant Super Sprite launch was the last flight of the second prototype WP-215 which came very close to terminating three of us on board when the main spar came apart at AUW following a measured take off.
I don't know the actual thrust numbers for the motor - it's probably in a contemporary Janes.
However, in his talk Dick quoted surface to 60,000ft in 3½ minutes, followed by 4 minutes manoeuvring time in which to find your marauding Soviet and shoot him down. After that the intent was to light the small turbine engine which gave enough power and thrust for an RTB, but not apparently for a go-around.
G
However, in his talk Dick quoted surface to 60,000ft in 3½ minutes, followed by 4 minutes manoeuvring time in which to find your marauding Soviet and shoot him down. After that the intent was to light the small turbine engine which gave enough power and thrust for an RTB, but not apparently for a go-around.
G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before my time, but I believe that they built 2 of them. One ran off the end of the runway at Boscombe and blew up, killing the pilot. The self-igniting fuel was always a phenomenal hazard and they built a special isolation hangar at Boscombe to house the thing. It was pulled down a year or two ago when it was deemed surplus to requirements. About 10 years ago I was asked to review Dick Stratton's reports on the performance of the aircraft to assess whether they could be downgraded. Fascinating stuff, and immaculately written.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The SR53 had a de Haviland Spectre rocket motor of 8,000lb thrust and an Armstrong Siddeley Viper turbojet of 1,750lb. The surviving example in the RAF Museum is shown here
The SR53 was a 2/3 (?) proof of concept for the SR177. This was one of the many UK designs that never reached production featured in the 50th Anniversary RAF Yearbook - the 177 looked like the Lawn Dart complete with underslung intake. A view of the aircraft is here
The SR53 was a 2/3 (?) proof of concept for the SR177. This was one of the many UK designs that never reached production featured in the 50th Anniversary RAF Yearbook - the 177 looked like the Lawn Dart complete with underslung intake. A view of the aircraft is here
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanx for the info guys.
I had the chance to watch the show again, benefit of cable, and managed to get a bit more info.
Dick Stratton was on the program, as well as another TP Erick Brown. I think that the primary test pilot was John Booth, who was the pilot killed when the 53 ran off the end of the runway.
Dick Stratton said that he ad seen 45000ft/min on the VSI !!!!!
They werent very specific with figures, it was more concered with the development of the 53 and the 177, and the political descisions that affected the program.
Genghis, interesting your comment about protectionism. It does seem that the program was done under by the US wanting to sell F-104s to the West Germans ove the 177.
Milt, with reguard to "your" Super Sea Sprites, where were the HTP and Kerosene mixed, Im assuming that the HTP hits the catalyst first, then the kero is added, ignited by the heat, burning the by product oxygen. Were they regeneratively cooled by the HTP, or was the duration to short to require cooling of the nozzle? And one more were you using RP-1 or JP-5?
Sorry for all the questions, I have a freind who was working on improving a HTP tip jet helicopter, by using JP-5 to improve the thrust. I got a shaky email from him saying that he had managed to blow his shed up, and nearly himself, and that it shouldnt be tried.
But now it appears that most of the British rocket program used just those fuels.
I still cant beleive the number of British programs that have been cancelled, usually just as they start to go. If the US had followed the same process, we never would have gotten anywhere.
The SR53/177, TSR2, Rotordyne (canned in favour of Chinooks), the early supersonic attempts, the Ballistic missile program (Blue Streak?), British Space Program (never really got going). Mind you the Aus govt does alot of the same thing, namely by not helping at all, our current scram jet program is an example of that. We got ours to work even before the US, but had to get overseas funding, meaning another Aus product goes offshore.
Anyway back to the topic, if anyone is aware of any papers published on this, or books of value I would appreciate a direction to look, particularly with reguard to the Viper.
Assuming that the 177 had gone into production, do you think that we would be seeing current generation rocket interceptors?
While advancements in jets negated the need for a rocket interceptor, perhaps similar advancements in rocket design, and operational experience may have kept it viable. Thoughts?
I had the chance to watch the show again, benefit of cable, and managed to get a bit more info.
Dick Stratton was on the program, as well as another TP Erick Brown. I think that the primary test pilot was John Booth, who was the pilot killed when the 53 ran off the end of the runway.
Dick Stratton said that he ad seen 45000ft/min on the VSI !!!!!
They werent very specific with figures, it was more concered with the development of the 53 and the 177, and the political descisions that affected the program.
Genghis, interesting your comment about protectionism. It does seem that the program was done under by the US wanting to sell F-104s to the West Germans ove the 177.
Milt, with reguard to "your" Super Sea Sprites, where were the HTP and Kerosene mixed, Im assuming that the HTP hits the catalyst first, then the kero is added, ignited by the heat, burning the by product oxygen. Were they regeneratively cooled by the HTP, or was the duration to short to require cooling of the nozzle? And one more were you using RP-1 or JP-5?
Sorry for all the questions, I have a freind who was working on improving a HTP tip jet helicopter, by using JP-5 to improve the thrust. I got a shaky email from him saying that he had managed to blow his shed up, and nearly himself, and that it shouldnt be tried.
But now it appears that most of the British rocket program used just those fuels.
I still cant beleive the number of British programs that have been cancelled, usually just as they start to go. If the US had followed the same process, we never would have gotten anywhere.
The SR53/177, TSR2, Rotordyne (canned in favour of Chinooks), the early supersonic attempts, the Ballistic missile program (Blue Streak?), British Space Program (never really got going). Mind you the Aus govt does alot of the same thing, namely by not helping at all, our current scram jet program is an example of that. We got ours to work even before the US, but had to get overseas funding, meaning another Aus product goes offshore.
Anyway back to the topic, if anyone is aware of any papers published on this, or books of value I would appreciate a direction to look, particularly with reguard to the Viper.
Assuming that the 177 had gone into production, do you think that we would be seeing current generation rocket interceptors?
While advancements in jets negated the need for a rocket interceptor, perhaps similar advancements in rocket design, and operational experience may have kept it viable. Thoughts?
Dick wasn't a TP; he'd been lead Flight Engineer on the Princess before becoming Engineer i/c of testing of the SR53 and then later head of helicopter R&D on the Saunders Roe (nee Cierva) helicopters.
Not quite on topic, but there is a rather interesting book called "Backroom Boys" by Francis Spufford (ISBN 0-571-21496-7) . The first chapter covers the Black Knight / Black Arrow programme which was the UK's space programme (ha!) using Saunders Roe rocket technology - it doesn't go into much technical detail but might give you some leads, and is a good read.
G
Not quite on topic, but there is a rather interesting book called "Backroom Boys" by Francis Spufford (ISBN 0-571-21496-7) . The first chapter covers the Black Knight / Black Arrow programme which was the UK's space programme (ha!) using Saunders Roe rocket technology - it doesn't go into much technical detail but might give you some leads, and is a good read.
G
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: kent-london
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
government appathy
I think the sight of cash to a british government is more important than what any british subject can achieve or dreams about. Our space programme was more than a scientific experiment it was a dream of making somthing of dream of exploration, as usual in this country its left to the little man until theres practical CASH in it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaced
Cannot recall the inner workings of the Super Sprites intended to enhance performance of the Valiant from the then standard 2000 yd runways..
Some boffin assured me that there was minimal risk of an explosion or malfunction and I was satisfied that the nitrogen purging system would get rid of any residual HTP.
My concerns then concentrated on
Optimum time to fire them off for greatest effect on a take off roll - burn time about 50 seconds,
Action to take if only one fired and was there enough rudder power and NW steering to cope,
Arrangements for measured take off,
Conditions for release - red line IAS was 215 kts,
Instrumentation,
Water ballast jettison of 4200 gallons - 2 x 1300 gal underwing tanks and 1000 gals in weapon bay
Single jettisons of SSs from 1000 ft AGL went OK and they were pronounced reuseable.
Don't think they were ever made operational.
Does anyone know of more than 4200 gallons of water being given wings and then jettisoned?
As it turned out complications set in when the main spar of one wing broke soon after take off!!! Yuk!! Amost terminal.
It felt like what I would expect of a mid air - we (3 crew) had a Meteor 7 as chase/photo. One great big bang and trim changes.
Very strong desire developed to get back on the ground. Runway received a drenching from continuing water jettison.
Wing held on by cross brace from top of forward sub spar to wing main spar outboard of break which resulted from fatigue crack about third of spar H section.
Do a Google search on High Test Peroxide and much will be revealed.
Cannot recall the inner workings of the Super Sprites intended to enhance performance of the Valiant from the then standard 2000 yd runways..
Some boffin assured me that there was minimal risk of an explosion or malfunction and I was satisfied that the nitrogen purging system would get rid of any residual HTP.
My concerns then concentrated on
Optimum time to fire them off for greatest effect on a take off roll - burn time about 50 seconds,
Action to take if only one fired and was there enough rudder power and NW steering to cope,
Arrangements for measured take off,
Conditions for release - red line IAS was 215 kts,
Instrumentation,
Water ballast jettison of 4200 gallons - 2 x 1300 gal underwing tanks and 1000 gals in weapon bay
Single jettisons of SSs from 1000 ft AGL went OK and they were pronounced reuseable.
Don't think they were ever made operational.
Does anyone know of more than 4200 gallons of water being given wings and then jettisoned?
As it turned out complications set in when the main spar of one wing broke soon after take off!!! Yuk!! Amost terminal.
It felt like what I would expect of a mid air - we (3 crew) had a Meteor 7 as chase/photo. One great big bang and trim changes.
Very strong desire developed to get back on the ground. Runway received a drenching from continuing water jettison.
Wing held on by cross brace from top of forward sub spar to wing main spar outboard of break which resulted from fatigue crack about third of spar H section.
Do a Google search on High Test Peroxide and much will be revealed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaced,
You might also look up "Perhydrol" and "Walter Cycle". The Germans used Perhydrol aka HTP and diesel as the fuel in several submarines powered by steam turbines (developed from the V2/A4 rocket turbines) - an idea followed up by the Royal Navy in two subs, HMS Experiment & Excalibur. They were both abandoned owing to too hot conditions in the engine room (not because the system didn't work) - makes you wonder what simple computer control could do.
(Sorry Genghis, it's the SCUBA diver coming out).
You might also look up "Perhydrol" and "Walter Cycle". The Germans used Perhydrol aka HTP and diesel as the fuel in several submarines powered by steam turbines (developed from the V2/A4 rocket turbines) - an idea followed up by the Royal Navy in two subs, HMS Experiment & Excalibur. They were both abandoned owing to too hot conditions in the engine room (not because the system didn't work) - makes you wonder what simple computer control could do.
(Sorry Genghis, it's the SCUBA diver coming out).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In simple terms, O Great Moderator, YOU DON'T! It's liquid mud in any of the lakes in Kansas. There are, however, some very large lakes within driving distance as is the Gulf of Mexico - the nearest thing to a space walk is to dive on one of the rigs.
There is also a dive club which, while not up to the average BSAC Branch, at least meets in a bar with a good selection of ales.
There is also a dive club which, while not up to the average BSAC Branch, at least meets in a bar with a good selection of ales.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spaced - tell your friend messing about with HTP to give up and save himself time, money and heartache NOW. Hell will freeze over before the CAA or FAA or anyone else will have anything to do with certifying an aircraft that carries an ounce of HTP. I became familiar with the stuff flying Vulcans equipped with the HTP/kero powered Blue Steel missile, and I promise you HTP is ghastly stuff, highly unstable, dangerous and given to causing anything it comes into contact with to spontaneously combust.
Handling the stuff is the nightmare of special procedures and equipment. Everything has to operating theatre clean and vast quantities of de-ionised water is needed wherever there is HTP. If airborne and the stuff goes unstable on you, you are on the end of a Mayday to get on the ground to offload the stuff before the ac blows up under you.
Get the picture? Now check out how commercially viable your friend's operation will be....
Handling the stuff is the nightmare of special procedures and equipment. Everything has to operating theatre clean and vast quantities of de-ionised water is needed wherever there is HTP. If airborne and the stuff goes unstable on you, you are on the end of a Mayday to get on the ground to offload the stuff before the ac blows up under you.
Get the picture? Now check out how commercially viable your friend's operation will be....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP, thanx for your input.
The idea was more of a revival for the Roton concept, but on a smaller scale. So it doesnt matter which way you cut it your going to have some sort of highly explosive material to deal with.
I do appreciatehearing from people who have worked with the stuff though, practical experience is always better than theory.
Its pretty much shelved for the moment anyway.
What was your involvement with Blue Steel?
The idea was more of a revival for the Roton concept, but on a smaller scale. So it doesnt matter which way you cut it your going to have some sort of highly explosive material to deal with.
I do appreciatehearing from people who have worked with the stuff though, practical experience is always better than theory.
Its pretty much shelved for the moment anyway.
What was your involvement with Blue Steel?
