Hawker P.1035 (Jet Fury)

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Hawker P.1035 Hawk. Source grade 1.

I came across some unattributed notes and sketches of mine from long ago. The description of Hawker's P.1035 match those widely spread -- based on the F.2/43 Fury but B.41-powered with a long jet pipe and the Fury cockpit moved forward.

Questions

1 - Has anyone seen a drawing of the P.1035 with a higher source grade?

2 - Can anyone confirm the 'Hawk' name? (I also noted 'Jet Fury' but assume that to be a description rather than an appellation.)

3 - Is a tricycle landing gear a safe assumption or might the P.1035 have inherited the Fury u/c arrangement?

A scale modeller depicting the P.1035 retained the Fury gear. A variation with that gear is in the Scale Modelling, Fan Art & Profiles section.


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3575.0.html
 

Attachments

  • p1035-hawk-trike.jpg
    p1035-hawk-trike.jpg
    20.5 KB · Views: 648

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,442
Reaction score
7,094
From Brooklands:

P.1035 Jet fighter. P.1026 with RR B.41 jet engine.
P.1026 Fighter to F2/43, Griffon.

No drawings yet for these there, AFAIK.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Thanks overscan,

"P.1026 with RR B.41 jet engine" sounds like the descriptions that I've read attributed to the P.1035.

In the Scale Modelling section, Justo has posted an image of a wind tunnel model. It has a low-mounted (I think) Fury wing, raided tailplane, and split jet pipes. Much more P.1040-looking other than the wing planform. Perhaps this is actually P.1035 and the long jet pipe model was "P.1026 with RR B.41 jet engine"?
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
115
maybe this can be usefull:
...When details of the Nene (RB.41) became available in the autumn of 1944 Hawker shemed
Project P.1035. This proposed moving the cockpit to the nose and mounting the engine amidships in the fuselage of the F.2/43 fighter(which became the Centaurus powered Fury and Sea Fury) with
a long jetpipe exhausting at the tail.
It was a stepping stone to a more refined design,and any resemblance to the Fury slowly disappeared.
It now included wing-root intakes ( although the Fury's elliptical wing planform was retained) with the
fuselage mounted engine exhausting through short bifurcated jetpipes on the fuselage sides
just aft of the wing trailing edge...

so far :database Hawker Sea Hawk-Aeroplane Monthly .September 2002
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
That's a drawing I produced with Lark some years ago (when my nick was "Libélula")
 

Attachments

  • pometablava P1035.jpg
    pometablava P1035.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 528

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,442
Reaction score
7,094
Some info from "smurf". He doesn't recall the source unfortunately.
 

Attachments

  • Jet-Fury.jpg
    Jet-Fury.jpg
    200.1 KB · Views: 514

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
Photoshop experiments with P.1026 drawing and P.1040 nose to recreate the P.1035
 

Attachments

  • p-1035 pometablava-lark.jpg
    p-1035 pometablava-lark.jpg
    309.4 KB · Views: 570

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Excellent feedback, folks. Many thanks.

Pometablava & Lark: I love your reconstruction -- especially the 'slot' intakes. Like you, I assumed that a Fury-winged aircraft would retain its original armament (rather than risking gun gas injestion). I too began by overlaying the P.1040 onto a Fury.

Overscan & smurf: that answers the question. In 1943, P.1035 meets the usual descriptions (long jet pipe, etc.). By 1944, it was morphing into something much more like the P.1040.

Now I am intrigued by the P.1031. I wonder, was the engine placed Yak-15 style? Was the Rolls-Royce P.40 an axial-flow jet? Great stuff ... more to dig for! ;D

Thanks to all.
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
50
Sorry I didn't note the source of my photocopy. It's filed with my Hawker stuff but I think it's from a more general book. if it turns up, I'll post. I also remember seeing a picture of a Fury-winged jet, not one of those posted. I've a pile of stuff to file from our last house move, but I'm working on a warship article, so it may be some time.
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
I'll post more info form mags&book this evening and also a P 1031 "photoshop experiment". Lark and me were also interested on P 1031 too.
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
More experiments. Source grading: 1
 

Attachments

  • pometablava Hawkers 1st jets.jpg
    pometablava Hawkers 1st jets.jpg
    181 KB · Views: 215

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Joe: Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like the P.1040-style canopy was used from the outset (I'd interpreted moving the Fury cockpit forward literally and included the Fury sliding hood with that).

Antonio: interesting take on the P.1031. Any idea whether the P.40 engine was an axial or centrifugal flow type? It seemed to me that directing the thrust beneath the fuselage would be trickier for a 'chubby' centrifugal type.

This got me pondering a possible connection between the P.1031's nose-mounted engine and the P.1040's split jet pipes. Might exploring a more direct jet Fury conversion have got Camm et al considering split jet pipes to begin with?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,442
Reaction score
7,094
From Sea Hawk, Profile 71 by Francis K Mason.
 

Attachments

  • P.1035.jpg
    P.1035.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 157

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Cheers Overscan.

That makes it seem probably that the Rolls-Royce P.40 was either another Derwent derivative study or an early stage of the B.41 Nene.

I'm assuming that "lateral intakes" simply distinguished side intakes from a nose intake. Otherwise, it implies more Attacker-like intakes.
 

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
860
Reaction score
206
overscan said:
Some info from "smurf". He doesn't recall the source unfortunately.

It's from Robert Jackson's "Hawker Hunter - The Operational Record" (ISBN 1-85310-048-X / Airlife, 1989).
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
Apophenia,

That text from Overscan is the most precise description I've read about the P.1035 to date. I think there is no need now to post description from my own sources. When produced the P.1035 drawing, we assumed literally that was described as a "minimal-change jet conversion from P.1026" . It was clear (from literature) that nose section from P.1026 was replaced with that seen on the P.1040. According to "minimal change philosophy" we assumed that engine was feed from the existing intakes at P.1026 wing (early jets feeded from little intakes) and landing gear was classical. (Compared to contemporary designs evolved from existing aircraft it was logical. Supermarine did that with Spiteful to Attacker).

After reading the text from Francis K. Mason book, I guess P.1035 was more similar to your recreation (trycicle gear and lateral P.1040 style intakes) than that from Lark and me.

What do you think Lark? ;)
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
It sounds like there was little to choose between the late stages of the P.1035 and the start of the P.1040. Perhaps the design office at Kingston simply changed the designation to avoid internal confusion as the design continued to evolve?

Antonio: IIRC, the F6U Pirate had 'slot' intakes very much like those in your P.1035 drawing.
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
It sounds like there was little to choose between the late stages of the P.1035 and the start of the P.1040. Perhaps the design office at Kingston simply changed the designation to avoid internal confusion as the design continued to evolve?

In my opinion 2 different designations are justified. There is some conceptual and chronological paralelism between "Jet Fury" and "Jet Thunderbolt". Both started as a way to quickly obtain a jet fighter from an existing piston engined design. In both cases it was found that straight conversion resulted in poor performance designs (In the P.1035 the long jet exhaust pipe originated lost of thrust and engine performance was limited in early jets). So the idea didn't work and much redesign was needed in order to get a high performance jet fighter, definetively a new design. P.1035 gave pass to P.1040 as Jet Thunderbolt to Model 23 Thunderjet. P.1035 and Jet Thunderbolt also had a very short existence (few months).

I think P.1035 and P.1040 main differences are engine exhaust and wing/tail surfaces. I believe it should be enough to justify different project numbers. However every designer has its own criteria about project numbers. For instance, AP-10 was the model number at Republic for USAAC P-47, P-47A and P-47B Thunderbolt. (P-47 and P-47A were radicaly different designs from P-47B)

Regards,

Antonio
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,812
Reaction score
115
The full honour for the drawing of the very early P.1035 must go to Pometablava.
I only put some pieces of the puzzle together..
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,639
Reaction score
498
Let's say 50% Lark + 50% Pometablava then ;)
 

smurf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
549
Reaction score
50
My thanks to boxkite.
and to others for very interesting data, quotes and drawings.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,852
Reaction score
1,487
Antonio,

I agree. The different designations were justified. The split jet pipe is a big change from the original straight-through type envisioned. And, as you suggest, once the P.1040 adopts a new wing design, there's little if anything of the original Fury left.
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,074
Reaction score
4,178
Website
www.amazon.com
TsrJoe said:
erm its not a wind tunnel model (the caption is wrong!) this one is a 1/72 wooden model i put together a few years ago for Tony Buttler as a discussion piece, i guess someone took a photo of the model at a show and assumed it was an original?

i based my model on an early P.1040? (P.1035?) design artwork drawing published in 'Sydney Camm and the Hurricane' (ref to follow) which shows a 'Tempest winged' 'Hawk' with teardrop canopy like the prototype P.1040, the drawing is not the best quality but seems to be the earlist surviving incarnation of the type?

cheers, Joe


From Air Enthusiast No 105 July/August 2003
"Test beds and experimentals" by Tony Buttler
 

Attachments

  • Escanear.jpg
    Escanear.jpg
    151.6 KB · Views: 464

PeterW

Pedantic, no, just persistent...
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Jet Fury scale drawings
Very nice work Justo, good to see this thread is still alive! I'm very slowly building a 1/48 P.1040 and eventually want to build a link between this and the Fury/Tempest. From an engineering perspective its my hunch that it was the tricycle undercarriage that spelt the end of the Fury wing - the spar was then in the wrong place, so they reverted to a simple straight tapered wing at the same time as they introduced the bifurcated jet exhaust - voila - P.1040. For the P.1035 at the point in time you have drawn it I have no idea whether it would have intakes as you have shown or side intakes like an Attacker. Both fit the description 'lateral intakes'. What influenced you to choose the wing root intakes?
 

Justo Miranda

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
5,074
Reaction score
4,178
Website
www.amazon.com
Air Enthusiast No 105 July/August 2003
"Test beds and experimentals" by Tony Buttler
 

Attachments

  • 1000.jpg
    1000.jpg
    151.6 KB · Views: 76

Airborne2001

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
101
Reaction score
82
So kind of like:

The Supermarine Spiteful was to the Supermarine Attacker as was the Hawker Fury to the Hawker Sea Fury.
 

Similar threads

Top