Fairey Delta 2, not the English Electric Lightning

[JFC Fuller]

Merged with earlier thread on the same topic.

Relevant to this topic:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/fairey-er-103-fighters.3074

Using an online converter, I can't vouch for the accuracy, the fuel weight of the ER.103C is equal to approximately 1,000 imperial gallons, only two-thirds of the P.1121. Perhaps it would have been possible to squeeze some additional fuel into the rear fuselage but there is no evidence for that. The undercarriage arrangement might leave enough room for four underwing pylons in addition to the wingtip Red Tops and there is plenty of room under the fuselage for stores so it feels like something interesting could have been made of it from a tactical fighter perspective. The fighter-bomber variation of the twin engined submission hints to the possible albeit it was more of an OR.339 effort.

It really isn't outlandish to have an AU in which the RAF procured a supersonic tactical fighter-bomber in the late 1950s, it is a shame that the usual suspect was allowed to destroy this thread though.

 

[zen]

It's notable the AI radar installation is all together in a detachable nose. Not only making maintenance and replacement easy. But logically upgrades or alternative nose packages possible for various mission sets.
A dedicated PR version for example or a version for Ground Attack.

 

[Hood]

Using an online converter, I can't vouch for the accuracy, the fuel weight of the ER.103C is equal to approximately 1,000 imperial gallons, only two-thirds of the P.1121. Perhaps it would have been possible to squeeze some additional fuel into the rear fuselage but there is no evidence for that.

For comparison to ER.103C, the Mirage III only had 646 Imp Gals of internal fuel (121 in a tank fitted when no rocket fitted, 224 in 4 tanks around the intake ducts and 301 in wing tanks).

 

[Hood]

If you truly want to look at a Mirage rival from Britain, a developed Avro 720 is a better starting point. Avro were early adopters of delta wings and area rule, were technically sound with good leadership, and Avro 720 instead of SR.53 could lead to a Mirage-like family.

Avro's metal honeycomb sandwich construction for the 720 was considered to be cheap and easy to manufacture and offered good structural strength combined with low weight. It would have made an interesting alternative to the Lightning for sure.
Using a 10,750lbf Gyron Junior on the two-seat 725 trainer - which retained the 720's fuselage diameter - was estimated to get to Mach 1.15 at 40,000ft. I think something like the Olypmus, Gyron or RB.106 would have been needed to get to Mach 2 (a single Avon might not have enough puff), but the possibilities were certainly there.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Removed some posts taking the discussion in an unproductive direction.

 

[JFC Fuller]

For comparison to ER.103C, the Mirage III only had 646 Imp Gals of internal fuel (121 in a tank fitted when no rocket fitted, 224 in 4 tanks around the intake ducts and 301 in wing tanks).

Though the ER.103C from the brochure has a full-size Gyron, thats got to be thirstier than an Atar 09C. An RB.128 apparently had better SFC than the Gyron or the RB.122 but these are still monster engines aimed at maximising climb and altitude performance, perhaps not ideal for a multirole type? Again, back to the Hawker view that the Olympus offered the best trade between high and low altitude performance?

Avro's metal honeycomb sandwich construction for the 720 was considered to be cheap and easy to manufacture and offered good structural strength combined with low weight. It would have made an interesting alternative to the Lightning for sure.
Using a 10,750lbf Gyron Junior on the two-seat 725 trainer - which retained the 720's fuselage diameter - was estimated to get to Mach 1.15 at 40,000ft. I think something like the Olypmus, Gyron or RB.106 would have been needed to get to Mach 2 (a single Avon might not have enough puff), but the possibilities were certainly there.

Presumably this is the same construction method Avro proposed for the Vulcan Phase III wing? A scaled-up 720 derivative is exactly what I had in mind earlier in the thread. I'm still not sure any of this offers much advantage over an English Electric P.6 with a fuselage mounted undercarriage or the P.1121 though.

 

[uk 75]

It seems a bit of a leap to me to get any of these very old fashioned looking 50s designs (sort of British F102 Delta Daggers) into something useful in 1962
Lightning still seems the best of a bad bunch. It does not use any dodgy fuel/rockets but can fly high very quickly.
Its weakness (sorry fellow Brits) is having only two Firestreak/Red Tops instead of 4 Sidewinders. Genie to hit swarms of Badgers and Bears over the N Sea appeals too as we are still in the era of "massive response".
That Javelins lasted so long into the 60s suggests that having 4 rather than 2 AAM on a fighter with decent range suited the RAF too.
An air defence Buccaneer would give you space for plenty of radar and missiles but I lost that argument some years ago.

 

[uk 75]

Anyone keen on rocket powered fighters should read this

Incident Messerschmitt Me 163B-1a Komet VF241,

Messerschmitt Komet VF241: Captured ex-Luftwaffe aircraft, retained for flight test trials. The RAE never tested the Me 163 under power themselves; due to the danger of its hypergolic pro...

aviation-safety.net

No wonder Eric W Brown lived so long and productively.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For comparison to ER.103C, the Mirage III only had 646 Imp Gals of internal fuel (121 in a tank fitted when no rocket fitted, 224 in 4 tanks around the intake ducts and 301 in wing tanks).

So 1000ImpGal in the ER103C is a pretty massive improvement in fuel capacity.

Does raise a question of wing thickness, though. The F102 had to be significantly redesigned with thinner wings as a result of the area rule.

Avro's metal honeycomb sandwich construction for the 720 was considered to be cheap and easy to manufacture and offered good structural strength combined with low weight. It would have made an interesting alternative to the Lightning for sure.

It's miserable stuff to repair, but great for strength as long as it's intact. The preferred fix is to replace the entire panel, as re-bonding the honeycomb is a nightmare/pain in the ass.

It seems a bit of a leap to me to get any of these very old fashioned looking 50s designs (sort of British F102 Delta Daggers) into something useful in 1962
Lightning still seems the best of a bad bunch. It does not use any dodgy fuel/rockets but can fly high very quickly.
Its weakness (sorry fellow Brits) is having only two Firestreak/Red Tops instead of 4 Sidewinders. Genie to hit swarms of Badgers and Bears over the N Sea appeals too as we are still in the era of "massive response".
That Javelins lasted so long into the 60s suggests that having 4 rather than 2 AAM on a fighter with decent range suited the RAF too.
An air defence Buccaneer would give you space for plenty of radar and missiles but I lost that argument some years ago.

Even the US fighters armed with AIM4s tended to have 4x missiles unless they were packing Genies. And even then, the F101s carried 2x Genies and 2x IR Falcons. (early on the F101 and F102 carried 6x Falcons, but that was reduced to 4x)

The Sparrow fighters tended to pack 3-4 sparrows as well.

 

[Rule of cool]

Even the US fighters armed with AIM4s tended to have 4x missiles unless they were packing Genies. And even then, the F101s carried 2x Genies and 2x IR Falcons. (early on the F101 and F102 carried 6x Falcons, but that was reduced to 4x)

The Sparrow fighters tended to pack 3-4 sparrows as well.

The Gyron powered ER103C and Lightning were certainly powerful enough to carry 4 big British AAMs without loosing too much performance. I don't know how the ER103C would mount another 2 AAM but the Lightning F53 had a pair of underwing pylons able to carry a 1,000lb bomb so on the face of it could carry another 2 AAMs.

 

[Hood]

Though the ER.103C from the brochure has a full-size Gyron, thats got to be thirstier than an Atar 09C. An RB.128 apparently had better SFC than the Gyron or the RB.122 but these are still monster engines aimed at maximising climb and altitude performance, perhaps not ideal for a multirole type? Again, back to the Hawker view that the Olympus offered the best trade between high and low altitude performance?

That's very true, the ER.103C has to cope with a thirstier engine. The Olympus is probably the better choice for an all-round fighter.
Either that or a Series 200 or (even better) Series 300 Avon - the Draken basically had an Avon 301 and achieved Mach 2.3.

Presumably this is the same construction method Avro proposed for the Vulcan Phase III wing? A scaled-up 720 derivative is exactly what I had in mind earlier in the thread. I'm still not sure any of this offers much advantage over an English Electric P.6 with a fuselage mounted undercarriage or the P.1121 though.

I'll have to dig out the BIS booklet on UK rocket fighters, I think it might have more detail on the construction used - presumably the Vulcan Phase III used the same technique.
A slightly scaled 720 might get away with an Avon, the other two would need the larger engine. I'd go for P.6 as my ideal choice, but a 720 development is an interesting alternative path (I'd certainly choose it over the P.177).

 

[Hood]

It's miserable stuff to repair, but great for strength as long as it's intact. The preferred fix is to replace the entire panel, as re-bonding the honeycomb is a nightmare/pain in the ass.

Yes it might have been trickier for the 'erks' to repair and work with. But Avro seemed convinced that it would be robust.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes it might have been trickier for the 'erks' to repair and work with. But Avro seemed convinced that it would be robust.

Oh, it's quite robust. Basically the entire floor structure of a Huey is metal honeycomb composites!

 

[pathology_doc]

The Olympus is probably the better choice for an all-round fighter.

Damien Burke's TSR.2 book points out that BAC had no end of trouble with the Olympus, the very first problem being that thrust-weight ratio figures turned out to be rather optimistic, and would rather have taken a Rolls-Royce engine (but were overruled).

 

[MadRat]

Fairey perhaps could have partnered with Convair to explore common research goals. I cannot help but see superficial similarity between Fairey Delta and the Sea Dart. The US and British just weren't quite as easy at being partners in those days. Its hard to imagine that the need to develop affordable technologies wasn't relevant to US and Commonwealth interests let alone joint partners. This is the era Canada needed shiny new jets for integration with NORAD's SAGE system, and Fairey Delta certainly looked the part of a Cold War supersonic fighter.