PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20th Dec 2012, 18:25   #1 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 56
Posts: 4,453
Super Sonic Harrier - HS P.1154

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.

Last edited by CoffmanStarter; 21st Dec 2012 at 09:37.
CoffmanStarter is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 18:32   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Lot, Southwest France
Posts: 3,391
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.
Courtney Mil is online now   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 18:51   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Age: 59
Posts: 257
P1154

Some interesting details here:

The P.1154 story

5,000 people directly employed on developing it in 1965 !
RAFEngO74to09 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 18:59   #4 (permalink)

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,735
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?

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.

Last edited by con-pilot; 20th Dec 2012 at 19:01.
con-pilot is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 19:10   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 61
Posts: 96
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.
Dominator2 is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 19:10   #6 (permalink)
SKOTAS, LAPIFC
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 1,933
Kestrel .
Wholigan is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 19:11   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 21,572
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....

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

Last edited by BEagle; 20th Dec 2012 at 19:13.
BEagle is offline   Reply
Old 20th Dec 2012, 19:40   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 56
Posts: 4,453
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

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.
CoffmanStarter is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 02:01   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: on the beach
Posts: 358
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.
mike-wsm is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 07:12   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 56
Posts: 4,453
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.
CoffmanStarter is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 13:21   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somerset
Age: 59
Posts: 76
There is a BS100 engine on display at the FAAM, just behind the P1127
Seaking93 is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 13:57   #12 (permalink)

 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: down south
Age: 67
Posts: 13,242
Quote:
Ooh good. Another Harrier thread.
Oh no.............
Lightning Mate is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 17:04   #13 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,184
John Farley's post #515 and #518 in http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7144134 are explanatory
Milo Minderbinder is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 17:40   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 207
Supersonic Harrier?? It was!!

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

Never tried it in the 5/7!!


Last edited by BomberH; 21st Dec 2012 at 17:43.
BomberH is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 17:43   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 56
Posts: 4,453
Bomber ... By design or by happenstance ?
CoffmanStarter is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 18:13   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 120
Quote:
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.
noprobs is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 18:15   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: East Yorkshire
Age: 65
Posts: 39
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.
walbut is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 18:22   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 207
noprobs

Your memory is beginning to worry me!!

Do I need to speak to my lawyer??
BomberH is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 18:32   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 120
Bomber,

You know my past, too, so the principle of MAD could apply. I'll be quiet now.
noprobs is offline   Reply
Old 21st Dec 2012, 20:42   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Quote:

Ooh good. Another Harrier thread.


Oh no.............
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

Last edited by cuefaye; 21st Dec 2012 at 20:53.
cuefaye is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:14.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network