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

Saunders Roe P.177 / SR.177

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
This certainly suggests that with something like the thames this could have been a potent little aircraft. Interestingly Friedman also states that the radar was to be the AI.20?

Would seem so, I'll have to go back to my photocopies and check the reheat chamber diameter as thats the key issue for the Thames.

The AI.20 is a bit of a poser from Friedman, and I do wonder why he writes that. What schematics of the cockpit I've seen suggest a hand controller like in the Lightning and other indications of the use of AI.23 albeit with a 18inch dish.

Which takes me to a some strange musings on AI.20, since this is the only set the UK has with a strong beam function aimed at guidance of a beamriding missile, but in theory there is nothing precluding its use for semi-active homing guidance instead, bar the issue of keeping the beam on the target.

We know from Friedman and the Admiralty records, that they see collision course interception as the more capable method, compared to stern chase it allows a interception at greater distance from the carrier. But at the time, Red Dean is dead, and Red Hebe is sometime in the future, so they only have the Firestreak IR homer available, with all that means for stern chase interceptions only.
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
sealordlawrence said:
Rickshaw,

The RN's HTP torpedo experience was shown at the time to have been a product of trying to do things on the cheap, reusing the Mk 8 torpedo casing as the basis for the Fancy is what proved disasterous and this was well known. Interestingly the Swedes proved able to use HTP torpedos without incident based on the british developments.

You miss my point. I was referring to perceptions about the dangers of using HTP, particularly at sea, rather than necessarily the realities. As I also pointed out, the RAF managed to utilise it with Blue Steel, although their experience was that it required _very_ careful handling. Something the Luftwaffe during WWII also found. The Swedes OTOH utilised a pre-packaged HTP fuel source for their Torpedos. They do not attempt to fuel or service them on the short-ranged missions they undertake. That is a very different experience to trying to fuel and maintain an aircraft at sea. So there are indications in both directions. Personally, I wouldn't want to touch it with a bargepole.
 

yellowaster

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
86
Reaction score
47
zen said:
This certainly suggests that with something like the thames this could have been a potent little aircraft. Interestingly Friedman also states that the radar was to be the AI.20?

Would seem so, I'll have to go back to my photocopies and check the reheat chamber diameter as thats the key issue for the Thames.

The AI.20 is a bit of a poser from Friedman, and I do wonder why he writes that. What schematics of the cockpit I've seen suggest a hand controller like in the Lightning and other indications of the use of AI.23 albeit with a 18inch dish.

Which takes me to a some strange musings on AI.20, since this is the only set the UK has with a strong beam function aimed at guidance of a beamriding missile, but in theory there is nothing precluding its use for semi-active homing guidance instead, bar the issue of keeping the beam on the target.

We know from Friedman and the Admiralty records, that they see collision course interception as the more capable method, compared to stern chase it allows a interception at greater distance from the carrier. But at the time, Red Dean is dead, and Red Hebe is sometime in the future, so they only have the Firestreak IR homer available, with all that means for stern chase interceptions only.

Zen,

I think you may be mistaken regarding AI.20 having a beam-guidance function. It had a simple spiral-scan search mode and a con-scan radar-ranging attack mode. Designed for a stern attack with guns or Firestreak.

yellowaster
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
I'd try to read the ECKO site and their description.

Try this page for what I'm on about.
http://ekco-radar.co.uk/kensims/bluesky06.php

The set did produce a pencil beam for guiding the beam rider, in the basic setup they trialed it was fixed to the aircraft axis, and the pilot had to keep the target dead ahead while the missile was in flight.

Presumably the full weapon system would have some mechanism for keeping the beam on target even if it veered away from the fighters axis?
 

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
196
I've never really seen the appeal of SR.177 myself.
Overscan

Only four years late - but I am with you brother!!
I guess the British just had to get the German WWII Rocket Interceptor thing out of their system!

Regards
Pioneer
 

yellowaster

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
86
Reaction score
47
zen said:
I'd try to read the ECKO site and their description.

Try this page for what I'm on about.
http://ekco-radar.co.uk/kensims/bluesky06.php

The set did produce a pencil beam for guiding the beam rider, in the basic setup they trialed it was fixed to the aircraft axis, and the pilot had to keep the target dead ahead while the missile was in flight.

Presumably the full weapon system would have some mechanism for keeping the beam on target even if it veered away from the fighters axis?

Zen,

the guidance set for Blue Sky was Radar Ranging Mk.2 (ARI 5869), which is what the Ekco site describes. Note that it was really just a guidance set, no search function: the pilot was expected to acquire the target visually (presumably after being fed in by GCI); approach target in a narrow cone astern; lock the radar on using GGS for alignment; then manually track the target through the GGS for a number of seconds while the missile was in flight. AI.20 was a different radar altogether, different requirements, and was only ever intended for guns or Firestreak.

yellowaster
 

Attachments

  • AI20.jpg
    AI20.jpg
    281.7 KB · Views: 331

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
19
PMN1 said:
I've cut and pasted this from another site

.

Top speed was limited due to cheap materials for mass production.
Hi PMN1,
"Top speed was limited due to cheap materials for mass production"
I have never heard of this before, it was my understanding that the airframe limit for the service aircraft was expected to be about mach 2.78 at altitude.
Originally MoS wanted an all steel airframe/wing but Brennan said "No", mach limit of a proposed developed aircraft with a "new" steel wing was to be in excess of Mach3.
Turning circle at altitude was expected to be a quarter that of the Phantom.
SR177 better at altitude than the Typhoon.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
Gosh I don't know. Memory plays strange tricks. Perhaps it the statement the AI.20 was to similar things to the Fireflash guidance radar.
 

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
19
zen said:
Gosh I don't know. Memory plays strange tricks. Perhaps it the statement the AI.20 was to similar things to the Fireflash guidance radar.
Hi

One more point of interest, for the Naval version drawings show the jet engine was to be vectored to give STOL performance, has any one got details please?
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,225
Reaction score
931
In Derek Woods "Project Cancelled" an internal layout is shown, said to be
the naval version, but there seem to be no signs of thrust vectoring.
 

Attachments

  • P-177.jpg
    P-177.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 658

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Whilst is it is not vectored there is a distinct downward angling of the afterburner chamber that would be even more pronounced when the aircraft was on deck as looking at the lines under the undercarriage it would also sit with its tail angled down, in many ways it looks like it has some of the thinking of the later F-4K Phantom.

I would still love to see an image of the redesigned version with the RB.133.
 

Graeme65

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Split the intake either side and enlarge the radar nose, displace a little of the ventral fuel and add a second seat in tandom with a slightly rasised cockpit to improve vision and you do indeed have something of a single engine Phantom.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
Hmmmm...nice to see that picture up, I have a rather poor photocopy of a rather poor version from the Saro book.

You can see how much room the AI.23 set takes up, a bigger dish is going to increase the length of the nose and cause problems for visibility.
But it might be do-able if they change the inlet to something closer to the F8 Crusader.

Vision should be good for landing, I see little problem there as is.

The whole 'thrust vectoring' thing is a little odd, but my take is this is a periode of exploration of what is both possible and practical for naval aircraft. Lowering landing speeds was major preoccupation for the RN.
SR.177 is from various sources to have vicariously:-

1. Some thrust diverted to a small nozzle between the main gear for direct lift, reducing the forward speed needed for safe flight.
2. Vectoring main engine nozzle as per the Shorts PD.13
And then 3. the RAE study for blow over the wing. Which is the most appealing of the three.

Still wondering about that AI.20 comment, was'nt the set an X-band CW type?
 

yellowaster

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
86
Reaction score
47
AI.20 was a conventional X-band pulse radar. Its main attractions were its simplicity and light weight. It was intended to go into the P.177 at one point - probably because it was the only single-seat radar which looked like meeting the dates. However, I suspect that decision changed once the AI.23 dates became firmer.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Zen,

May I ask what your sources are for the STOL options?

The thrust vectoring reference may go some way to explain the truly odd wiki edit that states that the RB.153 was the German engine choice as variants of that had a sort of thrust vectoring in the form of an thrust diversion pipe. However the timelines are still wrong with the RB.153 not appearing until 1958 so it is almost certainly a typo.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
145
sealordlawrence said:
The thrust vectoring reference may go some way to explain the truly odd wiki edit that states that the RB.153 was the German engine choice as variants of that had a sort of thrust vectoring in the form of an thrust diversion pipe. However the timelines are still wrong with the RB.153 not appearing until 1958 so it is almost certainly a typo.

Sounds like someone's got their wires crossed and is confusing the SR.177 with the VJ 101D.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
References....

Somewhere here is the RAE paper, dealing with blow and the projected TO and L speeds.

The vectoring option is I think mentioned in BSP, but it might be Friedman.....no I think it was Friedman who stated the mini-nozzle (RALS?) type.

I'll recheck.

BSP1, page 112 "But the Admiralty requested a deflected jet flap in addition to blown flaps required by the Air Ministry"

Can't seem to find the other reference now, might take some time on that one.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Zen,

My copy of BSP says nothing about a deflected jet flap, just about a deflected jet. I wonder whether what is being referred to is the manner in which the engine and reheat chamber have been angled in order to direct the thrust downwards as shown in the picture posted by Jemiba. If you find the Friedman reference I would love to see it.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Just a random thought that I have had relating to this subject. I think that it is fair to say that it would have had an afterburner with the RB.133, and that would certainly have produced a supersonic fighter, possibly pushing towards Mach 2. However the type was clearly still lacking some boost. So how about a Napier Double or Triple Scorpion as was proposed and briefly pursued for the Lightning F.3?

Zen,

were you ever able to find that reference to the considered STOL additions related to thrust vectoring? I have a funny feeling you may have seen the discussion about an exhaust between the main gear in Norman Friedman's 'Carrier Air Power' based on some google book searching I have done. Unfortunately it is a snippet only entry so if someone has access to a copy it should be worth a look!
 

Barrington Bond

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
From Sea To Air by Tagg & Wheeler

Vectored (jet deflector) thrust ;)
 

Attachments

  • Misc001b.jpg
    Misc001b.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 466
  • Misc001a.jpg
    Misc001a.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 546
  • Misc002.jpg
    Misc002.jpg
    94.4 KB · Views: 576

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
Barrington Bond,

Excellent find, thanks for posting, so there definitely was a jet deflector! Fascinating, I wonder how much it would have improved take off performance? This certainly may have made the aircraft more attractive to the Germans who maintained a fascination with STOL/VSTOL concepts (for obvious reasons) and were looking closely at the type anyway.
 

Barrington Bond

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
Not much text on the craft in the book but these might be of interest...

"The fitment of the AI-23 radar essential for successful interception was the main cause of the considerable growth." Presumably from the SR 53?

"Production - Contract cover was received authorising production of nine aircraft, as below, with cover up to 27 aircraft with limitations.

XL 905 - 907 Development aircraft
XL 920 - 922 RAF Version
XL 923 - 925 RN Version"

"In order to save the project, proposals were made to build variants of the aircraft for research purposes. A number of schemes of various configurations involving wings of several different types, including W and reversed W planforms were devised, none of which proceeded beyond the early proposal stage."


Regards,
Barry
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,008
Reaction score
711
For take off I suspect the jet deflection was a non-starter, but for landing theres potential in the idea or at least the concept we're looking at here in lowering the approach speed.

At takeoff I feel reheat offered the more attractive option. Consider that the increase in thrust to 14,000lb is likely to produce better results on the 151ft stroke catapult than vectoring 10,000lb close to the CofG not to mention the issues of the hot jet and gases on both the aircraft and the flightdeck.

But then the alternative of using blow is viable in both cases, takeoff and landing.

Sr.53 had no radar, though I imagine the production variant would get a gun ranging set.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
135
Partial thrust deflection on SR.177RN (30% is figure from memory, but may well be wrong) was intended for landing. It allowed the engine to be kept at max thrust while offloading the wing and providing boundary layer blowing air. In case of a 'bolter', the airbrakes (and possibly the thrust deflector too) would close in much less time than the engine could spool up, so it made sense.

If a turbofan (Spey maybe) was to have been used later on, it would have made even more of a difference due to their even slower spool up.

I always thought the X-32 CV version could have used this - a fixed variant of the vectored thrust system of the STOVL version. Might have saved the need for the re-design away from the delta wing.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
1,911
yellowaster said:
zen,

regarding XD151 and the hole in stainless steel HTP pipe (20 SWG, 0.25-inch OD). Pipe was analysed by AID labs, who concluded it was electrical in origin, caused by arcing with a PVC-covered copper cable. The AIB report then goes on to state that the only cables in Spectre bay were instrumentation, load not exceeding 2.5A, and fuzed to 10A. Thus difficult to see how these cables could have produced the damage. Also concluded that there was no possibility of hole occurring post-crash. So cause of the hole seems to be a mystery. It seems odd that more isn't made of this in the conclusion of the report.

yellowaster

Sabotage?
 

AndyG61

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
zen said:
For take off I suspect the jet deflection was a non-starter, but for landing theres potential in the idea or at least the concept we're looking at here in lowering the approach speed.

Worth noting that jet deflection of this type was a design feature on the Grumman A-6, and flown on the initial YA2F-1 prototypes; the benefits were insignificant, and more than outweighed by the complexity, so was dropped by the time the initial pre-production aircraft were flown.
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
Didn't know that. Data/scientific personnel interchange, RAE:NACA/WPAFB was never closer than in the early weapon system period, late-1950s/early-1960s. We know of those R&D exercises that were (part-)funded in MSP/MWDP (such as NA.39, P.1127), and of formal Memoranda such as for atomic and GW work, but Joe Public is unaware of general exchange of Govt. Establishment experimental work.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
A splendid piece of artwork recently posted on deviantART:

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Saro-Sr-53-408201121
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,773
Reaction score
1,911
Stargazer2006 said:
A splendid piece of artwork recently posted on deviantART:

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Saro-Sr-53-408201121

Your right there!
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
CNH said:
That picture is a rip off of the lid of the Airfix kit, painted by Roy Cross.

Allow me to differ. The angle is different (look at the wings) and the shape of the fuselage is more faithful to the real article.

The fact that there is some degree of resemblance could be a sign that the author was paying a tribute to the original artwork, but calling it "a rip-off" is certainly inadequate and insulting to his effort, in my opinion.
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
649
I think I prefer the term homage, and I'm guilty (OK, Adrian's hard work, but he can claim the Nuremburg Defence)

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Homage_1.jpg
    Homage_1.jpg
    352.4 KB · Views: 405
  • Homage_2.jpg
    Homage_2.jpg
    261.2 KB · Views: 376

CNH

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
466
Reaction score
439

A model by Guy Finch.
 

fudge

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
In the excellent book British Aircraft Carriers by David Hobbs there is a three-view general arrangement drawing of the Saunders Roe SR177 but instead of showing the normal heavily framed canopy it instead shows a clear blown canopy instead, does anyone know if this was a genuine proposal please?
Thanks
Alan
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,897
Reaction score
806
The same author also states that the version with the single larger turbojet (RB.133 instead of Gyron Junior) the HTP tanks would have been converted to contain Avgas which suggests no rocket at all.
 

Similar threads

Top