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

Saunders Roe P.177 / SR.177

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,679
Reaction score
3,184
Thanks a lot. Beautiful model.
I can see various air intake shapes. Which is the final shape?
 

Attachments

  • 177.jpg
    177.jpg
    214.9 KB · Views: 282

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
959
That inlet is interesting and possibly a source of problems considering how short the duct is to the face of the engine.
 

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
952
Reaction score
385
I've never seen the second inlet shape before. The original intake had a movable lip which had to be in the forward position to allow the nose gear to deploy, IIRC. The second shape would remove that requirement.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,679
Reaction score
3,184

Attachments

  • saunders-roe-sr177_3.jpg
    saunders-roe-sr177_3.jpg
    148 KB · Views: 188
  • 18412470_450_450_73045_0_fit_0_3cff8c30882dd8062a0aaefc12dbdb40.jpg
    18412470_450_450_73045_0_fit_0_3cff8c30882dd8062a0aaefc12dbdb40.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 145
  • mev-11957175.jpg
    mev-11957175.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 142
  • 72223970_2493602414244588_3336098009330758560_n.jpg
    72223970_2493602414244588_3336098009330758560_n.jpg
    87.5 KB · Views: 131
  • 8167359666_5a5e5c4072_b.jpg
    8167359666_5a5e5c4072_b.jpg
    140.7 KB · Views: 167
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
959
A little necromancy....

But that inlet makes me wonder.....

It that just the model lacking the inlet component and this is just how it attaches to the model?

Or is that a genuine 2d wedge type as on F107, XB70 etc....?
Because if so, it surely storing up trouble considering the duct shape and it's shortness to the engine face.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
852
Website
beyondthesprues.com
A different view of the mockup previously shown:

saunders-roe-p-177-mockup-rocket-engine-installation-jpg.506396
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
333
Reaction score
306
Some of the earlier posts speculated that the SR 177 would possibly have been able to operate from a modernised Colossus or Majestic light fleet carrier. If this was the case then the type continuing development through to deployment may have changed the opinion that the light fleet carriers would need to be replaced as they were too small for the incoming designs, i.e. Sea Vixen and Scimitar. SR 177 could have been a very interesting alternative allowing said ships to potentially serve into the 80s.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,094
Reaction score
1,789
Taken at the De havilland Aviation Heritage Museum, suspended near a Gyron engine adjacent to the gift shop.
This model is a modern one probably made in the Philippines like some in my collection..You can tell by the squadron marking, 60s livery and the black lining. It may well be available from the Gift Shop..
If you compare it with the original period model shoen on itd stand you will see what I mean.
 

Attachments

  • 177~2.jpg
    177~2.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 105
  • 177~3.jpg
    177~3.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 163
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
959
Some of the earlier posts speculated that the SR 177 would possibly have been able to operate from a modernised Colossus or Majestic light fleet carrier. If this was the case then the type continuing development through to deployment may have changed the opinion that the light fleet carriers would need to be replaced as they were too small for the incoming designs, i.e. Sea Vixen and Scimitar. SR 177 could have been a very interesting alternative allowing said ships to potentially serve into the 80s.
There was somewhere on this site s pdf concerning wind tunnel tests of the Saro F.177 design examining it's low speed characteristics and schemes for reducing it's TO&L speeds.
Essentially it's speeds are with blow over the wing, not far off the Scimitar. But obviously at lower weights.
The result is a modified Colossus or Majestic might operate it safely.
But it all comes down to those modifications.
Where it would really tell is on a Centaur.
Obviously a wingfold would help.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
333
Reaction score
306
Some of the earlier posts speculated that the SR 177 would possibly have been able to operate from a modernised Colossus or Majestic light fleet carrier. If this was the case then the type continuing development through to deployment may have changed the opinion that the light fleet carriers would need to be replaced as they were too small for the incoming designs, i.e. Sea Vixen and Scimitar. SR 177 could have been a very interesting alternative allowing said ships to potentially serve into the 80s.
There was somewhere on this site s pdf concerning wind tunnel tests of the Saro F.177 design examining it's low speed characteristics and schemes for reducing it's TO&L speeds.
Essentially it's speeds are with blow over the wing, not far off the Scimitar. But obviously at lower weights.
The result is a modified Colossus or Majestic might operate it safely.
But it all comes down to those modifications.
Where it would really tell is on a Centaur.
Obviously a wingfold would help.
A fully developed SR177 could have made light carriers viable for much longer, especially if a suitable complementary carrier capable MPA was developed as well, one with a reasonable secondary anti ship or even strike capability.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,789
I may be mis-remembering and would have to dig-out Friedman to confirm, but I think Hermes was planned for P.177 and would have received HTP storage.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
959
Certainly Eagle and Victorious had planned airwings with F.177s in place of Scimitars. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was something similar for Hermes.
It also explains why the Scimitar was being used as the metric for the Trade Protection Carrier 'Argument' between DNC and DAW. As if you can operate Scimitar, you can operate F.177.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
243
I've never really seen the appeal of SR.177 myself. Afterburning turbojets are less complicated in use, in maintenance and supply train (single engine, not two, single fuel type) and seem a better solution. Other features of the design - T tail - not great - also its pretty fat looking (pre-area-rule, I assume) and like the YF-102 I have trouble seeing it exceed Mach 1, let alone 2. And don't even start on the canopy design.

A true blast from the past here, apologies Overscan.

Looking at SR177 plan views, and comparing them to EE Lightning, there firstly does not seem to be any appreciable area ruling on the Lightning. Secondly, the SR177 does appear to have a slightly curved notch in the fuselage where the wing joins - but nothing on the scale of the F-102.

Now maybe I’m wrong on the Lightning, perhaps there is some subtle area ruling, or maybe the configuration is not as susceptible to transonic drag - but from an admittedly brief look at things, if nothing precludes the Lightning from going supersonic, can we say the 177 cannot?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
231
I've never noticed the different air intake before, I've always seen it with the single intake with the 'shock cone', not the divided one show on the models. Was this an actual development or was it a bit of poetic license by the model maker.

Also images of the naval version with a carrier always show a light fleet carrier.

As a matter of interest, how was it planned to deploy the RAF version. I seem to recall; from a dark and dusty corner of my memory, that it was intended for them to take of from from a 'zero length' launcher, much like the experiments undertaken in the US with Super Sabres and Starfighter.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,789
Apologies for cross-posting but never seen this before so its a new revelation to me.
Tony Wilson's English Electric Lightning: Genesis & Projects mentions that in May 1956 the MoS were considering arming the Saro P.177 with Sparrow II to overcome Blue Jay's poor weather limitations. Ferranti were asked if they could add CW injection into the AI.23.
Presumably this was a short-lived musing given the status of the Sparrow II programme.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,751
Reaction score
4,408
I've never really seen the appeal of SR.177 myself. Afterburning turbojets are less complicated in use, in maintenance and supply train (single engine, not two, single fuel type) and seem a better solution. Other features of the design - T tail - not great - also its pretty fat looking (pre-area-rule, I assume) and like the YF-102 I have trouble seeing it exceed Mach 1, let alone 2. And don't even start on the canopy design.

A true blast from the past here, apologies Overscan.

Looking at SR177 plan views, and comparing them to EE Lightning, there firstly does not seem to be any appreciable area ruling on the Lightning. Secondly, the SR177 does appear to have a slightly curved notch in the fuselage where the wing joins - but nothing on the scale of the F-102.

Now maybe I’m wrong on the Lightning, perhaps there is some subtle area ruling, or maybe the configuration is not as susceptible to transonic drag - but from an admittedly brief look at things, if nothing precludes the Lightning from going supersonic, can we say the 177 cannot?
Lightning (P1B) actually was area ruled, largely accidentally. The wing shape helped avoid the fat middle of the early deltas. There's a drawing (in a Flight article I think?) showing the area profile and it's pretty good.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,751
Reaction score
4,408
Apologies for cross-posting but never seen this before so its a new revelation to me.
Tony Wilson's English Electric Lightning: Genesis & Projects mentions that in May 1956 the MoS were considering arming the Saro P.177 with Sparrow II to overcome Blue Jay's poor weather limitations. Ferranti were asked if they could add CW injection into the AI.23.
Presumably this was a short-lived musing given the status of the Sparrow II programme.

From my P.1121 book -

Drawings of P.1103 with American Sparrow
weapons were produced in 1955. The
Hawker drawings seem to show how the general
shape of the AAM-N-2 Sparrow I, but the
intended model appears to have been the
AAM-N-3 Sparrow II, while Ralph Hooper’s
notes seem to have mixed up Sparrow II and
Sparrow III in terms of which version had
active radar homing.

The Sparrow II doesn't need a CW illuminator as it has its own radar, so it seems likely that they were actually intending to fit Sparrow III with SARH homing. AI 23 with CW illuminator added crops up in various programs in this timeframe.

It seems that there was a lot of confusion about Sparrow versions at the time, as Ralph Hooper's notes on Sparrow definitely have II and III the wrong way around.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,126
Reaction score
243
I've never really seen the appeal of SR.177 myself. Afterburning turbojets are less complicated in use, in maintenance and supply train (single engine, not two, single fuel type) and seem a better solution. Other features of the design - T tail - not great - also its pretty fat looking (pre-area-rule, I assume) and like the YF-102 I have trouble seeing it exceed Mach 1, let alone 2. And don't even start on the canopy design.

A true blast from the past here, apologies Overscan.

Looking at SR177 plan views, and comparing them to EE Lightning, there firstly does not seem to be any appreciable area ruling on the Lightning. Secondly, the SR177 does appear to have a slightly curved notch in the fuselage where the wing joins - but nothing on the scale of the F-102.

Now maybe I’m wrong on the Lightning, perhaps there is some subtle area ruling, or maybe the configuration is not as susceptible to transonic drag - but from an admittedly brief look at things, if nothing precludes the Lightning from going supersonic, can we say the 177 cannot?
Lightning (P1B) actually was area ruled, largely accidentally. The wing shape helped avoid the fat middle of the early deltas. There's a drawing (in a Flight article I think?) showing the area profile and it's pretty good.
Cheers Overscan, I’ll have to hunt for that article. I wonder if there’s any area data for the SR177?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
959
Let's add in that study about fleet defence here.
It had a piece about head on collision course AAM substantially improving the distance at which an intercept could happen. Plus the simplicity of head on intercept compared to stern chase for computing the optimum.

Arguably Sparrow II is the stronger case due to it's ARH seeker.
As it was an 18" dish AI set would have quite limited range against a target. So Sparrow III would impose quite a demand on the pilot due to the shorter range of radar detection and tracking. Time from detection to missile launch would be tight for head on intercept.
But Sparrow II although shorter ranged is potentially more automatic.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,094
Reaction score
1,789
A lot of wishful thinking here. I doubt whether Saunders Roe were in the position to redesign the Sr177 in the way you suggest, still less manufacture them.
If the RN had wanted to use the Colossus/Majestics as trade protection/ASW carriers into the 60s the A4 Skyhawk would have been a much more realistic choice as Australia did.
But the resources were needed for the big fleet carriers culminating in CVA01.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
1,789
From my P.1121 book -

Drawings of P.1103 with American Sparrow
weapons were produced in 1955. The
Hawker drawings seem to show how the general
shape of the AAM-N-2 Sparrow I, but the
intended model appears to have been the
AAM-N-3 Sparrow II, while Ralph Hooper’s
notes seem to have mixed up Sparrow II and
Sparrow III in terms of which version had
active radar homing.

The Sparrow II doesn't need a CW illuminator as it has its own radar, so it seems likely that they were actually intending to fit Sparrow III with SARH homing. AI 23 with CW illuminator added crops up in various programs in this timeframe.

It seems that there was a lot of confusion about Sparrow versions at the time, as Ralph Hooper's notes on Sparrow definitely have II and III the wrong way around.

Thanks, that makes more sense.
If anything Tony Wilson's book brings out the complete chaos reigning in the AAM field in Britain at the time, a whole multitude of missiles and sub-versions and tinkering that was largely wasted effort. So its no surprise getting a handle on US systems was difficult given the amount of paper work coming out of the MoS.

Regards area rule, the Lightning was analysed when Whitcomb's research was made public and found to be largely ok without the need for further bumps and bulges. Having the missiles where they were seemed to help too, in effect acting as a 'bulge' on the forward fuselage ahead of the wing. The slightly wider T.4 and T.5 canopy bulge made them marginally faster clean too. This was probably a lucky break, though its noticable that some of the later PL configurations with the largest belly pods had rear bulges added for fuel tanks which was probably to overcome the greater cross section of the extensive ventral pod and match the advantages the wider T.5 forward bump gave.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,103
Reaction score
2,968
Some of the earlier posts speculated that the SR 177 would possibly have been able to operate from a modernised Colossus or Majestic light fleet carrier. If this was the case then the type continuing development through to deployment may have changed the opinion that the light fleet carriers would need to be replaced as they were too small for the incoming designs, i.e. Sea Vixen and Scimitar. SR 177 could have been a very interesting alternative allowing said ships to potentially serve into the 80s.

Is that related to the rocket in the back ? (big thrust)
- because mixed mode fighters (rocket + jets) weren't very practical in the long term.
HTP on a ship wasn't very practical...
 

iverson

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
410
Reaction score
243
The mixed rocket-jet propulsion may not seem very sensible in hindsight, but it was attractive enough to be pretty widely considered. Even the Mirage III design included a rocket pack.

When the SR.177 was conceived, I think several factors made the rocket attractive:

* Early jet engines were comparatively slow to accelerate.

* Afterburners were in their infancy, and getting them to work safely, reliably, and relatively economically while providing worthwhile additional thrust took some time. Just compare the eyelid nozzles on an early Mirage to those on an F-16 to see how far things have come.

* The naval and air-force doctrine of the time prioritized interception of fast, high-altitude, nuclear-armed targets. Jet-fighter range and endurance were still relatively modest, so combat air patrol at long range was not practical. This put a premium on maximum rate of climb immediately after takeoff.

The SR.177 was, if anything, a fairly conservative application of the mixed power idea. It's predecessor, the SR.53, was conceived as a light, short-range interceptor for the RAF, where the rocket was the main source of combat of combat power, as in the Me163. The Viper turbojet was intended mainly to allow post intercept recovery to a suitable airfield. A reusable SAM of sorts.

Finally, nasty as high-test hydrogen peroxide can be (I have seen the effect of smallish amounts on human flesh in the lab), would it really be any more dangerous and impractical aboard ship than the gasoline that navies had accepted for decades?
 

Richard N

Lost in the Sky
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
634
Reaction score
535
Area Rule Chart by Lightning Aerodynamicist Ray Creasey

In reply to several posts about area rule in this thread and others, this chart by Lightning aerodynamicist Ray Creasey does the best job of showing the difference in cross sections between a non area ruled aircraft and an area ruled one. It seems the mistake most make about whether a configuration has been area ruled is to look only at the fuselage and ignore the wings, tail surfaces, and other bodies apart from the fuselage. The graphs of areas at the bottom of the chart show that the fuselage is just a part of the overall cross section of the aircraft.

This chart is from page 73 of the just published English Electric Lightning-Genesis and Projects by Tony Wilson.
 

Attachments

  • Ray Creasey Area Rule Chart.jpg
    Ray Creasey Area Rule Chart.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 60

SeaslugMk2

'Curator' of the Seaslug website.
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
78
Reaction score
157
Website
www.littlewars.org
Area Rule Chart by Lightning Aerodynamicist Ray Creasey

In reply to several posts about area rule in this thread and others, this chart by Lightning aerodynamicist Ray Creasey does the best job of showing the difference in cross sections between a non area ruled aircraft and an area ruled one. It seems the mistake most make about whether a configuration has been area ruled is to look only at the fuselage and ignore the wings, tail surfaces, and other bodies apart from the fuselage. The graphs of areas at the bottom of the chart show that the fuselage is just a part of the overall cross section of the aircraft.

This chart is from page 73 of the just published English Electric Lightning-Genesis and Projects by Tony Wilson.
You also have to subtract the area of the air ducts, with a correction depending on the velocity of the air when in supersonic flight.

SRJ.
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
727
Some of the earlier posts speculated that the SR 177 would possibly have been able to operate from a modernised Colossus or Majestic light fleet carrier. If this was the case then the type continuing development through to deployment may have changed the opinion that the light fleet carriers would need to be replaced as they were too small for the incoming designs, i.e. Sea Vixen and Scimitar. SR 177 could have been a very interesting alternative allowing said ships to potentially serve into the 80s.
There was somewhere on this site s pdf concerning wind tunnel tests of the Saro F.177 design examining it's low speed characteristics and schemes for reducing it's TO&L speeds.
Essentially it's speeds are with blow over the wing, not far off the Scimitar. But obviously at lower weights.
The result is a modified Colossus or Majestic might operate it safely.
But it all comes down to those modifications.
Where it would really tell is on a Centaur.
Obviously a wingfold would help.
A fully developed SR177 could have made light carriers viable for much longer, especially if a suitable complementary carrier capable MPA was developed as well, one with a reasonable secondary anti ship or even strike capability.

Majestic class carriers were sold to Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Holland, India, etc.
The last one was broken up - in India - in 2014. Several navies concluded that Panthers were too big, but a few did fly A-4 Skyhawks from their Majestic-class decks ... often up-dated with angled flight decks.
 

Similar threads

Top