Hawker Siddeley VTOL and V/STOL Studies Binder

[Barrington Bond]

Thanks to my wallet - from a binder scans that I have tried to clean up and condense the image to get more detail into the 1200 pixel limit.

Section 1 Subsonic VTOL aircraft with single B.S. Pegasus engine



Fig 1.1 Original P.1127 layout.

The straight through hot end is a feature which is currently being studied for supersonic STOL projects.



Fig 1.2 First Four Nozzle layout.



Fig 1.3 First Layout with Tri-cycle U/C.

The problem of the best undercarriage position is one that is still present in current projects. This particular layout was fairly simple but put the main wheels in a hot area when down and occupied a very useful fuel area when retracted.



Fig 1.4 P.1127 Prototype Aircraft

This has the quadri-cycle undercarriage layout which eventually formed the basis for the R.A.F. version of the P.1127.



Fig 1.5 Original “Kestrel”



Fig 1.6 P.1156 version



Fig 1.7 Production “Harrier”



Fig 1.8 P.1127 (R.A.F.) Dual version.



Fig 1.9 P.1127 (R.A.F.) with P.C.B.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 2 VTOL Aircraft with Two B.S. Pegasus Engines.



Fig 2.1 P.1132/1 Twin Pegasus Layout

Loss of one engine in an aircraft of this layout would give large roll control problems. (Also Napier “Double Scorpion” in tail)



Fig 2.2 P.1132



Fig 2.3 Later layout by Advanced Projects Group



Fig 2.4 Standard Twin Layout by APG



Fig 2.5 VTOL Interceptor

Canard layout having a good area distribution with supersonic capability but limited in role to that of an interceptor as only lightweight stores can be carried on the wing. Note that the hot end of the engines feed into a cross over duct to minimise the engine-out roll problems.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 3 Subsonic VTOL Aircraft with Lift Boost Engines



Fig 3.1 P.1126 VTOL Strike Aircraft

First Hawker layout of a multi lift engine aircraft. Without defelected thrust main engines the number of lift engines is increased thus giving high engine costs and increased weight. Note early ideas on swing out lift engines.



Fig 3.2 P.1139 Strike Fighter

A layout using a lift/cruise engine plus two additional lift engines. There is no doubt that on paper this arrangement results in the lowest engine plus fuel weight for the combination of VTOL plus large radius of action, but the problem of engine-out pitch control has so far prevented this arrangement being used in an actual aircraft.



Fig 3.3 Multi Lift Engine Aircraft



Fig 3.4 + 3.5 H.S. 1175 version of P.1127

An attempt to overcome the disadvantages of the two previous layouts by combining a high-thrust lift/cruise engine with only one lift boost engine placed very near to the C. of G.

This has been achieved by using a two nozzle version of the B.S. Pegasus for the lift/cruise engine.

As can be seen the forward position of the engine gives rise to a balance problem which has been overcome by using the tail end of the P.1127 (RAF) dual version.

Unfortunately the position of the lift engine is an embarrassment to the main undercarriage of the arrangement shown in Fig4 and accordingly Fig.5 shows an alternative wing mounted under-carriage layout. The disadvantages of the latter is that the wing pylon positions are compromised by the undercarriage pod.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 4 STOL Developments



Fig 4.1 STOL Harrier



A proposal to equip the P.1127 with a large wing fitted with high lift devices to enable it to carry an increased weapon load out of relatively short fields. It would of course, reduce its true VTO capacity owing to the increase in basic weight. Jul 65



Fig 4.2 STOL High Speed Development

This layout uses the same wing as the previous development but has a stretched and area-ruled fuselage to give a higher speed potential without resorting to P.C.B. In this condition the estimated maximum level speed at 36,000ft would be M=1.1



Fig 4.3 STOL Strike Fighter

A similar layout to the previous figure but shows an earlier scheme using a wing having blown flaps and a drooping leading edge.



Fig 4.4 Supersonic V/STOL Aircraft

This arrangement is orientated towards a carrier based aircraft and so has an even larger wing and an engine with P.C.B.



Fig 4.5 H.S 1181 STOL Strike Aircraft

Swivelling front nozzles only with P..B and straight through hot flow. Reheat could be added to improve both supersonic and take-off performance.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 5 Supersonic VTOL Aircraft with Lift/Cruise engines



Fig 5.1 P.1150/1 Strike Aircraft

The first natural supersonic derivative of the P.1127 using the Pegasus engine with P.C.B.

Fig 5.2 P.1150 Strike Aircraft

As the P.1150 series progressed it became obvious that more engines thrust was required, with the basic Pegasus design this could only be obtained by increasing the P.C.B. temperature but owing to the low pressure ratio of the fan stages the front nozzle became very large as shown in this layout. A new engine was therefore initiated under the designation B.S. 100 and this formed the basis for further studies resulting in the P.1154 which was successful in winning the NATO BMR3 competition for a supersonic VTO fighter. Following on from this, many design studies were carried out to attempt to produce an 1154 which would suit both the R.A.F. and R.N. but this resulted in a compromised design which suited neither service.



(See section 7 for concurrent H.S.A. studies of a more advanced type of Bi-Service aircraft).



Fig 5.3 P.1154 R.A.F. Ground Attack/Interceptor

The final single seat P.1154 (RAF) design fitted with a B.S. 100 engine. The much smaller size of the front nozzle compared with that of the Pegasus engine version is immediately apparent.



Fig 5.4 P.1154 R.N. Aircraft

This shows how different the R.N. requirements are to those of the RAF. Over-water operation demands two engines so a much redesigned version of the RR. Spey with PCB was chosen. The engine out roll problems was overcome by crossing over the hot exhaust in a special “trouser” casing.



Fig 5.5 P.1154 Twin Engine R.A.F. Aircraft

The RAF aircraft fitted with the engines of the RN version as these were supposed to be cheaper to develop than the B.S. 100



Fig 5.6 H.S. 1177 Strike Aircraft

A later study into ways of increasing the speed of the P.1154 type aircraft by providing reheat as well as P.C.B. Unfortunately the desirable hot-end crossover feature of the previous Spey installation is not possible with this layout.



Fig 5.7 H.S. 1179 Strike Fighter

Initial layout using P.C.B. front nozzles for take-off and landing only with full flow reheat on the two B.S.143 engines



Fig 5.8. H.S. 1179a Strike Fighter

Later layout of the above.



Fig 5.9 H.S. 1179b Strike Fighter

Initial layout using scaled up B.S. 143 engine



Fig 5.10 H.S. 1179c Strike Fighter

Twin RB.199 engine layout with front nozzles used continuously and reheated hot stream.



Fig 5.11 H.S. 1179d Strike Fighter

Single Pegasus 9 engine version (with P.C.B. and reheat)



Fig 5.12 + 13 H.S. 1179e + 1179f Strike Fighter

Two seat version of C+D respectively



Fig 5.14 1179g



Fig 5.15 1179h

Single RB199 with P..B. + reheat



Fig 5.16 1179j

Scaled down E



Fig 5.17+18 1179L+M

Pegasus 9 with P.C.B. (no reheat)

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 6 Supersonic V/STOL Aircraft With lift boost engines



Fig 6.1 AW171 Intended as a basis for a VTOL Mach 2.0 fighter it followed the Dr. Griffith concept of VTOL aircraft.



Fig 6.2 P.1137 V/STOL Tactical Aircraft

An early layout which had a multiplication of undesirable features. It should be compared with the layout of the West German VJ101C which actually flew and the following VJ101D which never reached the hardware stage.



Fig 6.3 P.1140 Strike Fighter

A supersonic derivative of the P.1139



Fig 6.4 P.1143

Similar to the VJ101C except that the tip engines do not contribute to the lift thrust making an extra bank of lift engines necessary. This eliminates the engine-out roll problem.



Fig 6.5 Multi Lift Engine Aircraft

The completely opposite approach to the NMBR3 competition as used by Dassault in their Mirage IIIV aircraft. Although this latter aircraft was built and flown quite successfully the previously mentioned disadvantage of high costs for such a multi engine installation finally brought the project to a halt.



Fig 6.6 P.1155 Strike Aircraft

A version of the Pegasus powered P.1150 type with two lift engines in an attempt to match the take off thrust of the B.S. 100 powered P.1154. This arrangement is currently being used in the West German Vak.191 project. To overcome the lift engine out pitch problem the latter aircraft employs an extremely complicated reaction control system and has yet to be proved in flight.



Fig 6.7 V/STOL Strike Aircraft

The Mach 2 “Starfighter” is here used as a basis for a lightweight V/STOL design employing the latest engine techniques. The lift engine-out case would introduce both pitch and roll problems which in the roll case would be difficult to overcome.



Fig 6.8 H.S. 1177 Strike Aircraft

The subsonic HS.1175 is here extended to the supersonic case with rehat added to the Pegasus two-nozzle engine. It is seen that the retention of the lift boost engines causes an undesirable complication and adds greatly to the fuselage volume. However, reheating both cold and hot streams of the Pegasus gives a very large thrust boost at high Mach numbers and bestows a potential top speed of around M=1.8.



Fig 6.9 H.S. 1177 Twin Spey Version

The installation of two standard R.R. Spey 5R engines in place of the Pegasus engine gives a slightly better top speed and range potential at the expense of an increase in basic weight and the introduction of the usual roll control problem with one engine out.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 7 Joint H.S.A. Bi-service V/STOL Aircraft Studies

This series of studies was initiated separately at Brough, Hatfield and Kingston and finally jointly at Kingston. The purpose was to investigate alternative layouts to the P.1154 approach to the Bi-service requirements. Both fixed wing and variable geometry arrangements were studied and as is obvious from the layouts shown the resulting complication of v.g. plus deflected thrust finally led to the adoption of the P.1154 basic design with minor changes to suit each role.

As stated in Section 5 the “commonality” achieved compromised each aircraft and accordingly the specifications were revised so that more optimum designs for each role could be submitted. As the layouts show, the R.A.F. and R.N. aircraft differed significantly so that a further study was initiated to produce true Bi-service aircraft. This again resulted in a compromised design which suited neither service and the final layouts reverted to the two separate aircraft previously shown in Section 5.



At this stage the R.N. decided to buy the McDonnel “Phantom” aircraft and the P.1154 R.A.F. aircraft only was ordered but later cancelled, for economic reasons, thus making way to the adoption of the P.1127.



Fig 7.1 D.H. 128 Bi-service aircraft

Fixed delta wing with deflected thrust and lift boost engines.



Fig 7.2 Blackburn B.123 Bi-service Aircraft.

Fixed wing with deflected thrust and lift boost engines but already showing differences for RAF and RN roles.



Fig 7.3 Hawker P.1152 Bi-servcie Aircraft

Fixed wing with single deflected thrust main engine plus additional lift boost engines.



Fig 7.4 Joint Study-Fixed wing Bi-srvice Aircraft

Fixed high aspect ratio wing with two deflected thrust main engines plus additional lift boost engines.



Fig 7.5 Prelimanary V.G. Multi Mission Aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines with variable geometry wing and fixed delta tail.



Fig 7.6 1017B V.GBi-service aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines plus lift boost engines, variable geometry wing and variable dihedral tail.



Fig 7.7 1017B V.GBi-service aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines plus lift boost engines, variable geometry wing and orthodox high mounted tail.



Fig 7.8 1017c V.G. Bi-service aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.6



Fig 7.9 1017cV.G. Bi-service aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.7



Fig 7.10 1017d V.G. Bi-Service Aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.8 with strap on lift engone pods.

Fig 7.11 1022 Studies of Lighter and Smaller

Fig 7.12 V.G. Bi-service aircraft with various deflected thrust engines

Fig 7.13



Fig 7.14 P.1154 R.A.F. aircraft

As initially submitted to meet the requirements of AW406/O.R.356



Fig 7.15 P.1154 R.N. As initially submitted to meet the requirements of AW406/O.R.356

The Naval version of Fig 7.14



Fig 7.16 P.1154 Revised R.A.F. Aircraft



Fig 7.17 P.1154 Revised R.N. Aircraft



Fig 7.18 P.1154 Final Bi-service aircraft

The most compromised design of all the P.1154 variants as complete commonality was incorporated.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 8 V/STOL Aircraft with V.G. Wings



Fig 8.1 Early V.G. version of P.1127 Type Aircraft



Fig 8.2 V.G. version of P.1141



Fig 8.3 P.1149 Strike Aircraft

The first of the heavy and complicated design which preceded the Bi-service studies.



Fig 8.4 SP. 110-1 V/STOL Strike Fighter

Moderate size V.G. aircraft with latest technology lift engines without deflected thrust on the main engines.



Fig 8.5 SP. 110.2 V/STOL Strike Fighter

Similar to previous layout but with deflected thrust main engines and swing-out swivelling lift engines similar to that employed in the recently cancelled US/FRG Tactical Fighter Project.

 

[Barrington Bond]

Section 9 VTOL Aircraft with Lift Fans



Fig 9.1 Prelimanary Layouts of Supersonic Fan in Fuselage

Fig 9.2 Aircraft showing three methods of driving the lift fans.

Fig 9.3

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Wow, quite the stash of drawings. Thanks for posting all of these! Mark

 

[Prophet141]

Thanks to my wallet - from a binder scans that I have tried to clean up and condense the image to get more detail into the 1200 pixel limit.

Section 1 Subsonic VTOL aircraft with single B.S. Pegasus engine

Fig 1.1 Original P.1127 layout.

The straight through hot end is a feature which is currently being studied for supersonic STOL projects.

Fig 1.2 First Four Nozzle layout.

Forgive me for nitpicking in spite of this excellent array of drawings, but it doesn't seem like Figs 1.1 or 1.2 are attached in Section 1?

 

[Barrington Bond]

Forgive me for nitpicking in spite of this excellent array of drawings, but it doesn't seem like Figs 1.1 or 1.2 are attached in Section 1?

The pictures were identical to ones you can find elsewhere so I didn't post them. You want it all on a plate?!

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Section 7 Joint H.S.A. Bi-service V/STOL Aircraft Studies

This series of studies was initiated separately at Brough, Hatfield and Kingston and finally jointly at Kingston. The purpose was to investigate alternative layouts to the P.1154 approach to the Bi-service requirements. Both fixed wing and variable geometry arrangements were studied and as is obvious from the layouts shown the resulting complication of v.g. plus deflected thrust finally led to the adoption of the P.1154 basic design with minor changes to suit each role.

As stated in Section 5 the “commonality” achieved compromised each aircraft and accordingly the specifications were revised so that more optimum designs for each role could be submitted. As the layouts show, the R.A.F. and R.N. aircraft differed significantly so that a further study was initiated to produce true Bi-service aircraft. This again resulted in a compromised design which suited neither service and the final layouts reverted to the two separate aircraft previously shown in Section 5.



At this stage the R.N. decided to buy the McDonnel “Phantom” aircraft and the P.1154 R.A.F. aircraft only was ordered but later cancelled, for economic reasons, thus making way to the adoption of the P.1127.



Fig 7.1 D.H. 128 Bi-service aircraft

Fixed delta wing with deflected thrust and lift boost engines.



Fig 7.2 Blackburn B.123 Bi-service Aircraft.

Fixed wing with deflected thrust and lift boost engines but already showing differences for RAF and RN roles.



Fig 7.3 Hawker P.1152 Bi-servcie Aircraft

Fixed wing with single deflected thrust main engine plus additional lift boost engines.



Fig 7.4 Joint Study-Fixed wing Bi-srvice Aircraft

Fixed high aspect ratio wing with two deflected thrust main engines plus additional lift boost engines.



Fig 7.5 Prelimanary V.G. Multi Mission Aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines with variable geometry wing and fixed delta tail.



Fig 7.6 1017B V.GBi-service aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines plus lift boost engines, variable geometry wing and variable dihedral tail.



Fig 7.7 1017B V.GBi-service aircraft

Twin deflected thrust main engines plus lift boost engines, variable geometry wing and orthodox high mounted tail.



Fig 7.8 1017c V.G. Bi-service aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.6



Fig 7.9 1017cV.G. Bi-service aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.7



Fig 7.10 1017d V.G. Bi-Service Aircraft

Similar to Fig 7.8 with strap on lift engone pods.

Fig 7.11 1022 Studies of Lighter and Smaller

Fig 7.12 V.G. Bi-service aircraft with various deflected thrust engines

Fig 7.13



Fig 7.14 P.1154 R.A.F. aircraft

As initially submitted to meet the requirements of AW406/O.R.356



Fig 7.15 P.1154 R.N. As initially submitted to meet the requirements of AW406/O.R.356

The Naval version of Fig 7.14



Fig 7.16 P.1154 Revised R.A.F. Aircraft



Fig 7.17 P.1154 Revised R.N. Aircraft



Fig 7.18 P.1154 Final Bi-service aircraft

The most compromised design of all the P.1154 variants as complete commonality was incorporated.

The variable angle V-tail is interesting. Don't recall seeing that elsewhere.

Thanks - great sets of drawings! Mark

 

[hesham]

Of course that's a great projects and drawings,so I suggest a name of book,included
these stuff and more;

Hawker Harrier, Origins,Developments & Derivatives

 

[SteveO]

Thanks so much for sharing these Barrington Bond

 

[Antonio]

Of course that's a great projects and drawings,so I suggest a name of book,included
these stuff and more;

Hawker Harrier, Origins,Developments & Derivatives

All the files could be easily joined into a pdf and that makes a nice document.