Non PCB BS.100 utilization?

[Lascaris]

Perhaps just thinking out loud. One of the major technical problems P.1154 was supposed to face was that BS.100 with PCB engaged will be having hot gas re-circulation while melting carrier decks and burning everything on the ground for land based aircraft.

Very well so... how about utilizing a BS.100 without a PCB? Without engaging PCB BS.100 was still generating 26,200 lbf thrust, 38% more than the contemporary Pegasus Mk101 in Harrier GR1 and 10% than the much later Pegasus Mk107. Potentially that enough to get a low supersonic V/STOL in the 1.3-1.5M range and for certain would make take STOL take off and landing much easier? Then if you posit similar evolution with the Pegasus final versions of the engine be the 1990s would be offering ~32,500 thrust. Maybe.

Thoughts?

 

[red admiral]

Thrust at higher speeds and altitudes will be significantly reduced without PCB increasing the exhaust velocity, even more so than the weather level static thrust differences. So almost definitely not supersonic. More like a Harrier with improved payload-range.

 

[alertken]

Big Fans: MoA had budget for a Demonstrator. RB178 won, 6/65 (to evolve as RB211). BSEL pitched jointly with SNECMA BS.123, which sampled B.Ol.593 turbine, BS.100 compressor. Losing, they jumped onto JT9D, causing RR to buy them and shut that idea down. SNECMA then leaped to CF6...CFMI.

 

[zen]

In theory....
BS.100 "Janus" offered sufficient thrust to potentially drive P.1154 above above Mach 1 in cruise.

My s.f.c figures seem a bit off and maybe represent partial PCB. But then they're likely deliberately skewed to favour other solutions to AW.406.

Ideally the dry s.f.c figure ought to be 0.6, which is superior to Spey/Medway 0.77.

A BSEL-SNECMA tie up on a big fan twin shaft engine is not too shabby an outcome. One of those Anglo-French AH scenarios.

 

[Archibald]

HS.681. Definitively.

 

[Archibald]

Well how about a C-130H with the turboprops replaced by four BS.100 ? for the record, a C-130H MTOW is 70 tons but a quartet of PCB BS.100 would be 62 tons of VSTOL thrust.

Neat things with BS.100 under a high wing:

1-all the VSTOL gadgetry is packed inside the engines. Not the airframe, not the wings. No need for complicated plumbing, or extensive blown flaps, or lift jets, or tilt wings or engines.

2-the engines are hanging from a high wing, so they are farther from the ground which should help with erosion, debris and hot gases re-ingestion issues.

The very VSTOL Hercules thread, tons of interesting stuff for sure.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/c-130-v-stol-modification-projects.2701/

Compared to most modifications shown in that thread, hanging four PCB BS.100 to a Hercules wing sounds like pretty straightforward. Just compare it with the first project on top of the page: Rockwell unworkable XFV-12 stupidity. By the way, it's a quadjet Hercules so don't tell me BS.100s could not be hung the same way.

 

[zen]

It would certainly be safer to use such for STOL.

 

[Archibald]

I want BS.100s on this - the NAR-382 was an Hercules, quadjet and VSTOL using the XVF-12 (unworkable) trick. Compared to that, we know that Pegasus and BS.100 worked perfectly well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I want BS.100s on this - the NAR-382 was an Hercules, quadjet and VSTOL using the XVF-12 (unworkable) trick. Compared to that, we know that Pegasus and BS.100 worked perfectly well.

Yes, Pegasus/BS100 worked perfectly well.

But I'm not entirely convinced that the XFV-12 was as unworkable as it proved. There was a pretty solid report that the inside of the air lines were very rough. No thought really given to airflow restrictions.