GOR.339, OR.343, TSR.2 design proposals ...

Hi! P.1129.

The Aviation Historian: NEWS

Fast-track links to our frequently-updated feeds on Facebook and Twitter enable you to keep up with latest news and items of interest regarding aviation history and related events, flying displays, aircraft museums and people. View video clips and animations, and download free digital giveaways...
www.theaviationhistorian.com www.theaviationhistorian.com

Hawker P.1129 Jet-Powered Strike Bomber Proposal Specifications and Pictures

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Hawker P.1129 Jet-Powered Strike Bomber Proposal including pictures.
www.militaryfactory.com
 

Attachments

  • P1129-diagrams-1.jpg
    P1129-diagrams-1.jpg
    300 KB · Views: 291
  • P1129-diagrams-2.jpg
    P1129-diagrams-2.jpg
    298 KB · Views: 323
Last edited:
Hi! English Electric P.17 design study.

Unknown design, Unknown design, P.17C(VTOL)

Early P.17 design, Canard P.17, P.17B, P.17A?

Unknown design, P.17VG, P.17Z
ENGLISH ELECTRIC P.17 STUDY.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 160419 Warton Superfighters.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 62
Last edited:
Hi!
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art15601.htm
”All that remains of Hawker’s P.1129 project in terms of hardware is a 1/24th-scale display model of the penultimate development version kept in storage at Brooklands Museum in Surrey. Note the later larger intakes, which replaced the semicircular conical intakes with half-cones originally incorporated on the early P.1129 design.”
 

Attachments

  • 27-1.jpg
    27-1.jpg
    160.5 KB · Views: 277
  • 29-2.jpg
    29-2.jpg
    105.4 KB · Views: 294
blackkite said:
Hi!
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art15601.htm
”All that remains of Hawker’s P.1129 project in terms of hardware is a 1/24th-scale display model of the penultimate development version kept in storage at Brooklands Museum in Surrey. Note the later larger intakes, which replaced the semicircular conical intakes with half-cones originally incorporated on the early P.1129 design.”
Click to expand...
Looks mighty like a Thunderchief!
 
As a side note, does anyone have any information/details on North American Aviation's proposal of a derivative of its A-5B Vigilante, it was supposed to have submitted as a TSR.2 substitute?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
As a side note, does anyone have any information/details on North American Aviation's proposal of a derivative of its A-5B Vigilante, it was supposed to have submitted as a TSR.2 substitute?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
That happened in Australia. I'd need to check it out but I wrote it up in an edition of Aeroplane in 2018.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Pioneer said:
As a side note, does anyone have any information/details on North American Aviation's proposal of a derivative of its A-5B Vigilante, it was supposed to have submitted as a TSR.2 substitute?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
That happened in Australia. I'd need to check it out but I wrote it up in an edition of Aeroplane in 2018.

Chris
Click to expand...
Thank you Chris, I'd greatly appreciate that.
I got the notion of NAA's proposal to the RAF from the following comment/post:

"The Retailator concept was developed further by NAA and a derivative with the hunchback of the Aj3-2 (Later A-5B) was looked upon with interest by the RAF during the TSR-2 definition phase. It was proposed to the Aussies too. Our Elmayerle has a lot of info on inner NAA workings, so maybe he can help..."

(Source: Skybolt, 2006. North American 'Retaliator' & NR-349 Interceptor proposals. Post #3 . https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...retaliator-nr-349-interceptor-proposals.1127/)

Going by what Skybolt is saying, he appears to have clearly denoted the RAF and RAAF proposals being different.

Alas Chris, until I read Skybolt's post, I didn't know of such a proposal to the RAF either.

Regards
Pioneer

​

 
Last edited:
Models in support of all the 1957 Proposals were kept in a MoA office until the Procurement function was banished to Bristol. Instead of being junked they were donated to RAFMus who put them in store at RAF Stafford. Still there?
 
It was the RA-5C the Aussies were interested in, but I suspect the same argument would apply to whatever version.

Here's a para from the article wot I wrote:

'The Australian Government thought otherwise, preferring the TFX and to support this, stated that to use an aircraft as expensive as TSR.2 to deliver high explosive was folly. In fact, CL Hewitt, Treasury Deputy Secretary said that ‘If defence is being planned in terms of non-nuclear war, then TSR.2 is very much too expensive to think of using in conjunction with high explosive.’ As for the RA-5C Vigilante, EJ Bunting, Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office, described it as coming a ‘long way third to the TFX and TSR.2’ and that the (Australian) Air Department ‘have been led up the financial path by US financial interests.’ Bunting also pointed out that the RA-5C Vigilante would require in-flight refuelling and if tanker aircraft were factored in, that would mean a 25% cost increase, making the TSR.2 look ‘not so much more expensive.’ Hewitt stated that there was little point in opting for an aircraft that neither the RAF or the USAF (alongside whom the RAAF would no doubt be operating in a war) had any interest in. The Vigilante would need to be fitted with low-pressure tyres, antilock brakes and braking parachute to allow it to operate from airfields in Australia and south east Asia.'
 
alertken said:
Models in support of all the 1957 Proposals were kept in a MoA office until the Procurement function was banished to Bristol. Instead of being junked they were donated to RAFMus who put them in store at RAF Stafford. Still there?
Click to expand...

Yes as of about 10 years ago
 
CJGibson said:
It was the RA-5C the Aussies were interested in, but I suspect the same argument would apply to whatever version.

Here's a para from the article wot I wrote:

'The Australian Government thought otherwise, preferring the TFX and to support this, stated that to use an aircraft as expensive as TSR.2 to deliver high explosive was folly. In fact, CL Hewitt, Treasury Deputy Secretary said that ‘If defence is being planned in terms of non-nuclear war, then TSR.2 is very much too expensive to think of using in conjunction with high explosive.’ As for the RA-5C Vigilante, EJ Bunting, Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office, described it as coming a ‘long way third to the TFX and TSR.2’ and that the (Australian) Air Department ‘have been led up the financial path by US financial interests.’ Bunting also pointed out that the RA-5C Vigilante would require in-flight refuelling and if tanker aircraft were factored in, that would mean a 25% cost increase, making the TSR.2 look ‘not so much more expensive.’ Hewitt stated that there was little point in opting for an aircraft that neither the RAF or the USAF (alongside whom the RAAF would no doubt be operating in a war) had any interest in. The Vigilante would need to be fitted with low-pressure tyres, antilock brakes and braking parachute to allow it to operate from airfields in Australia and south east Asia.'
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris, nicely written!
I'll have to find a copy of your full article!!

I guess in hindsight, pound for pound, the Vigi would have served the RAAF (ADF as a whole) well. I think all I've read over the years about the Australian participation/acquisition of the F-111, it had just as much, if not more with politics than material need and want.
I understand there's much vagueness to the NAA Retaliator, but I think it's clear that it was a Air Force-centric derived adaption of the Vigilante (c 1950's), so I'm thinking NAA would have included the important points about the incorporation of such "need to be fitted with low-pressure tyres, antilock brakes and braking parachute" as you so rightly point out, so I'm thinking that NAA would have been able to do this if Britain and Australia went for the Vigilante.

Anyhow, the search goes on for whether NAA submitted a A-5 Vigilante proposal to the RAF....one thing's for sure, if we're going to get to the bottom of this, it will be through the efforts of this fine forum and the wealth of knowledge of its members!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
First is a CGI images done by @BAROBA for my book; second is awful; third is from Tony's book.

Here's a couple of shots of the same model (later iteration of P.1129) I took, the "extras" section for purchasers of my book has a load of pics from various angles.
 

Attachments

  • P.1129 Square Intake [PRMM Photo] 053.png
    P.1129 Square Intake [PRMM Photo] 053.png
    339.4 KB · Views: 120
  • P.1129 Square Intake [PRMM Photo] 059.png
    P.1129 Square Intake [PRMM Photo] 059.png
    484.8 KB · Views: 117
Hi,

was there any drawing to P.22,a fighter version of P.17A ?,maybe a single seat or something like that !.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom