• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Hawker Siddeley P.1154

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193
Hi!
Following drawings for the RN exist.
1. P.1154 with one BS100 engine and 30ft small span wing.
2. P.1154 with two Spay engines and 36ft large span wing.

Was there a P.1154 plan for the RN with one BS100 engine and 36ft large span wing?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
I hope Inkworm wont mind me borrowing one of his images from Hushkits site and comparing it with the best artwork I have seen of the final version of P1154 at build. You will notice Inkworm's is based on a different drawing. I think Michael Pryce pointed this out in the old P1154 thread at page 1 now of this one.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193

Attachments

Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
Blackkite we really need harrier to answer this quest. The artwork is nice anyhow.
The 1154 was never going to replace the F6 Lightning so the RAF ones were more likely to have gone to 1127raf users or 6, 41 and 5 sqns who supported the UK Mobile Force
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193

Attachments

Last edited:

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
513

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193

Attachments

Last edited:

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
508
Mrs CJ says they haven't used my drawing, so here it is:

Note - Hawker drawing office don't appear to have attached version numbers to the individual designs. The labels here are drawing numbers and I'm not prepared to be the source of a Gloster-style confusion with drawing numbers being identified as designations.

Chris
P1154_RN_Evolution.png
 
Last edited:

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
280
Reaction score
263
So were there any common components between the variants? Rear Fuselage looks promising.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
918
I wish they had used it, first time I've seen a comparison of the various studies like this.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193
Color shows design date?
RAF
Red line shows the final version?
Green line shows NBMR.3 1961?
Royal Navy
Red line version has dog tooth at the wing.
Green line shows BS100 engine bicycle type undercarriage version?
Dark blue line shows 2×Spey version?
Unified type
Red line shows bicycle type undercarriage version?
Green line shows tricycle type undercarriage version?
 
Last edited:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
I will be buying this with great enthusiasm.
I wish there was one decent book on all aspects of the Harrier story both actual and projects
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
190

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
229
P1154: THE ORIGINAL HARRIER by Chris Gibson
Many see the P1154 as one of the great lost British aircraft, but it helped pioneer international collaboration
Link: https://aeroplanemonthly.keypublishing.com/the-magazine/view-issue/?issueID=8149
Thought this was the original Harrier . . . :p :D o_O

View attachment 627297

Hawker Harrier, 1925. Source :- https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-harrier

cheers,
Robin.
I often wondered where Hawker got the Harrier name from,
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
Chris
The article as ever is very good. I will add it to my collection as I have just purchased the mag.
As usual it raises more questions. You mention design variants of the P1154 as it evolved. We really do need a book on P1154 which does what the TSR2 book by Damien Burke did for that plane. Harrier has many commitments and cannot be persuaded. Tim Mclelland's volume is the fullest I know of.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
508
You can't beat a catchy title. I would have preferred something more esoteric, as usual.

I was quite surprised by the background to the P.1154 and aside from the supersonic bit the Harrier turned out to be a rather good alternative for dropping bombs on things. It saw off the Cheyenne!

Harriers.jpg
Other Harriers that probably predate 1925 if you're being pedantic. (Not these ones, obviously)

Chris
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193
Perhaps I can get my copy of this mag by Amaozn.co.jp.Can't wait.:)
And near future I can get a hard cover book for..............;)
 

gatoraptor

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
449
Reaction score
49
Of course, this is a harrier as well, a hunting dog midway in size between a beagle and a foxhound:

1583170985991.png
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193
I got AEROPLANE MONTHLY MAR 2020.
Highly recommend mag. And I look forward......:)
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
229
One thing about the P.1154 that confuses me most of all is the small matter of the Plenum Chamber Burning, how would it have worked and more importantly how would it have compared trust wise to standard After-burning. :confused:
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,145
Reaction score
2,193
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
Everything that needs to be written about P1154 is dispersed on this site in various threads. Type Harrier into the search engine under Member and you will not go far wrong.
 

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
431
Reaction score
368
Why was plenum burning not used in the Harrier?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
374
That's out? Nice. I got lashings and lashings of help from Mike Pryce and Chris Farara, for which I am grateful.
Have they used my P.1154 evolution drawing?

Chris
Very good read Chris-thanks for putting together and getting it published.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
808
Reaction score
181
Why was plenum burning not used in the Harrier?
I suspect that was because the PCB experiments showed fundamental problems with PCB (massive ground erosion).
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
229
Why was plenum burning not used in the Harrier?
I suspect that was because the PCB experiments showed fundamental problems with PCB (massive ground erosion).
That was what eventually killed of the Naval version of the P.1154, the Royal Navy eventually went for the F-4 Phantom for the conventional aircraft carriers. Then the RAF quickly followed.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
932
The RAF eventually got a rather good Hunter replacement in the form of the Jaguar,which served in the three UK squadrons allocated to ground attack in support of NATO in the Cold War and afterwards in the GulfWar. The P1127 RAF was not as popular with theRAF as its supporters wanted. As late as 2010 it choses to keep Tornados rather than Harriers. In 1965 it wanted more F4s instead of them.
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
280
Reaction score
263
Plenum chamber burning was not a done deal, along with its trench digging capability, you need to produce/maintain a very precise thrust balance between the left and right chambers, there’s a bunch more things that have to happen within the system to maintain a safe flying condition, within the engine, all three combustion locations must not interfer with each other, a problem with one must be managed while maintaining a level of thrust and so on. Hence it’s a order of magnitude more cost/difficultly to enable supersonic and the end user concluded that supersonic wasn’t that important. Essentially Harrier key intended role was delivering a tactical bucket of instant sunshine after NATO had no more runways left;- high subsonic and low level was good enough.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,633
Reaction score
1,188
Screwing P.1154 and salvaging P.1127 out of it was probably the right move - considering state of the art and British shape as of 1965.
Reading Tony Butler books one can see how the P.1154 was gradually refined up to P.1185 and P.1205 (from memory) until they ran into a brick wall.
They couldn't prevent the rear fuselage from falling appart, shaken and pressured by the PCB brute vibrations on each sides.
Then they split the rear fuselage into two booms, P-38 style, and blended the two side nozzles into a single one. Eureka ! After some twists and turns, was born the P.1216. The real, BIG missed opportunity. Particularly with Falklands and ASTOVL screaming for the aircraft to be build - to no avail.
 
Top