Hi,
The P1121 was referred to in Hansard as the Hurricane II,
The early schemes for the A720 had an all rocket version piggybacked by a Vulcan with a combat radius of 100miles from the point of launch.
One assumes for obvious reasons that Jet-reaction controls would have been used in an operational aircraft to enhance high altitude flight control in a similar fashion to that proposed for the SR53 etc.





PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Photos by Duncan Baxter from Avro Heritage visit - cutout from background.
 
720 extended family from Avro Type List http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.fildes3/Type 602 to 862

725
Advanced trainer version of Type 720 to OR.318. 1x DH PS.35 or Bristol BE.26. Span 27’4”, Length 40’9”, Height11’, AUW 12.970lb. Not built.

726
Single engined lightweight fighter variant of Type 720. DH PS.35 or A-S P.151. Span 27’4”, Length 39’3”, Height 14’, AUW 14,340lb. Not built.

727
NATO ground attack aircraft based on Type 720. 1x Bristol Orpheus. Span 27’4”, Length 34’, Height 9’, AUW 10,344lb. Not built.

728
Naval version of Type 720. 1x DH Gyron Junior + Spectre rocket motor. Span 27’4”, Length 48’, Height 15’, AUW 23,885lb. Not built.
 

Attachments

  • 725.jpg
    725.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 145
  • 726.jpg
    726.jpg
    14.7 KB · Views: 144
  • 727.jpg
    727.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 146
  • 728.jpg
    728.jpg
    28.5 KB · Views: 173
Stumbled across a couple of reference to the Bristol Zeus engine, giving twice the output that I'd previously seen listed.

Previously this engine was associated with the 726 interceptor but seems far too powerful for that given the MTOW listed above:

T H E Bristol Zeus turbojet has again been unofficially reported;
the journal Flugwelt, of Wiesbaden, suggests that it has a
thrust of 8,000 kg (17,600 lb) and quotes a French report as say-
ing that it is a competitor of the de Havilland Gyron.

All speak of it as a high-thrust turbojet reported to be of two-spool design
and giving a thrust between 12,000 and 20,000 lb.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1956/1956%20-%201241.PDF
 

Attachments

  • AVRO 720.JPG
    AVRO 720.JPG
    94.7 KB · Views: 114
  • the-1957-defence-white-paper-cancelled-projects.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 15
  • c734b29426ebbe49938516f1a5d337ae.jpg
    c734b29426ebbe49938516f1a5d337ae.jpg
    85.4 KB · Views: 102
  • mev-10846752.jpg
    mev-10846752.jpg
    127.2 KB · Views: 109
Last edited:
Here's a very small copy of the drawing.

Hoping to publish it in my P.1121 book eventually. Will have a fairly good section on F155T.
Time to come back to this.
Having seen a bigger picture of it the main thing that struck me is how much volume taken by the avionics. This really brings home the scale of the task to package the systems up in a small airframe.
 
Screamer used lox, which was a No No in terms of rocket motors for for manned aircraft.

Much earlier, the decision had been taken to use only HTP as the oxidant in manned aircraft.
 
Regarding the Avro 721:
The three V-bombers were all originally built for the high-altitude bombing role. In 1952, while the Vulcan was performing its first flights, the Air Ministry requested preliminary concepts for a "Low Altitude Bomber (LAB)" to complement the high-altitude bomber force, with the LAB penetrating enemy defenses at an altitude of about 150 meters (500 feet) at close to Mach 1.

General concepts were submitted by most of Britain's aircraft manufacturers. The Avro proposal was the "Avro 721", and was in the form of a canard machine with a small, cranked-delta wing. Powerplant options included four projected Napier NP.172 turbofans or two Rolls-Royce Conway turbofans. The small wing made getting off the runway with a full warload troublesome, and so built-in rocket boosters were considered. The bomb was to be ejected backwards through doors in the rear.

The LAB concepts submitted by the manufacturers were given a looking-over; meetings were conducted in 1954 on moving to a full requirement specifying an operational aircraft, but the studies indicated that a LAB would require considerable effort and involve high risk. The aircraft demanded a high strength-to-weight ratio, new navigation systems, new weapons and associated delivery schemes, and so on. The cost of development was estimated as high as 15 million pounds -- a modest sum for development of a combat aircraft these days, even adjusting for inflation, but a major expense for those days, and more than the budget could bear. The conclusion was to not seek an operational system.

Since the V-bombers ended up operating at low level anyway, the decision not to proceed comes across as a lost opportunity, but LAB really was pushing the state of the art. The Royal Navy did obtain a low-altitude tactical bomber in the early 1960s, the superlative Blackburn Buccaneer, which the RAF would adopt as well -- though only because all alternatives got the axe. The RAF was not happy about the Buccaneer at first, but once in service it proved an outstanding combat aircraft.
1668712857814.png

The 'Avro 691' on the drawing seems to be a typo, or possibly the initial designation or incarnation of the design?

With regards as to the 'slip-plane' proposal for getting it airborne: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/avro-721-as-air-borne-aircraft.40513/
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom