Vickers 571 (single-engine version)...

[Archibald]

I red once again BSP (Bombers) tonight, particularly the TSR-2 chapters. I wanted to know more about the RB-142 powered contenders (after we talked about this engine with Elmayerle on another thread)
I found this peculiar aircraft, the Vickers 571 with a single RB-142. It was rejected in August 1958 when the Twin-engine 571 was declared the winner, and later merged with the P.17 to give birth to the... TSR-2.

Now, just imagine that this Vickers 571 (1 engine) had been elected... weight was only 16-20 tons, and more, aparently it managed to fulfill the GOR-339 range (1800 km) with small external tanks!  
No troublesome Olympus, and less specialised aircraft. With a weight around the 20 tons, it can fulfill the RN requirement of 1961 (can't remember the bloody number!)
but also the RAF medium range interceptor fulfilled by the spey Phantom...

[Archibald]

PS I definitely fell in love with the Hawker P.1129! How beautiful was this plane, a real marvel! Hawker, king of fighter design!  

[Zen]

Yeap Type 571 was the cheapest 'new' option and a possible replacement for the Buccaneer in the RN. It used a hydraulic catapult to achieve the short take off required, which really does mean it was eminently navalisable.

Only problem with it is its nose was rather small for fighters radar. It would need a lot of changes to make into a fighter.

That said had the RAF adopted this and the P1121.......quite a combination.

[Archibald]

That's why I would reject the P.1129, as the RAF did... we NEED the Harrier
Aaaaaaargh, Zen, if the RAF buy the P.1129 AND the Type 571, once again no Harrier... or maybe a French Harrier ? Wibault team with Breguet, they won against the Mirage IIIV (because their concept is so much more practical) and this gave us a STOL/ VTOL Breguet fighter, to escort the Br.941 transport

[Archibald]

Yeap Type 571 was the cheapest 'new' option and a possible replacement for the Buccaneer in the RN. It used a hydraulic catapult to achieve the short take off required, which really does mean it was eminently navalisable.

Only problem with it is its nose was rather small for fighters radar. It would need a lot of changes to make into a fighter.

That said had the RAF adopted this and the P1121.......quite a combination.

In every case, the fact that the Type 571 is CHEAPER than the TSR-2 and navalisable solve two problems. Not too bad after all, and well the Lightning will wait another fighter from Vickers or Blackburn to replace it.  

[Zen]

The biggest problem with this aircraft is at 58ft long it needs quite a nosefold just to fit down on the lifts into the hanger.

[Zen]

What the UK and RN needed was really the Brough P146 and P141 designes to have been produced around 1960-1963.

Alternatively Hawkers P1152 should have been offered to AW406 without the lift jets and clangbox thrust diverter, in effect as a normal CTOL aircraft with a variable incidence wing (like the Crusader but this machine was larger).

OF the GOR339 designs the DeHaviland (Christchurch) DH 339 machine might have been navalisable as both a fighter and strike machine. Once again this has a variable incidence wing.

The BAC Type584 without lift jets and with lift devices on the wing (leading and trailing edge movable surfaces which the VTOL version did not have), could have met RAF and RN needs bar the single engine. There being space in the fusilage once the lift jets are removed for a second seat and for more fuel.

Then again the Type582 offeres everything the earlier OR346 required, the use of multiple small jets means the loss of one engine is a survivable event for both pilot and the aircraft.
Of all of them the Type582 is :-
1.likely to have been the fastest to develop from concept to design to prototype to production aircraft.
2. has excess performance in terms of range/ROA, and Take off and Landing speeds.
3. meets the endurance requirements.
4. carries two crew
5. has the largest radar scanner possible of all the designs

Thus it can:-
Fullfill the strike function of the Buccaneer
Fullfill the Fighter function of the Vixen
Perform the QRA and CAP missions for the RAF
Perform the recce missions of the Canberra.

The only mission its less effective at is that of the TSR.2 low level strike, due to a more responsive gust responce than either the VG machines or the TSR.2, but it has the range.

The only negatives are:-
1. the jet engine needs developmet but in the interim the RB153 will suffice.
2. the carridge of weapons is limiting.
3. visiblity is restricted partialy on one side.

The reduced requirements of AW406 could easily be met b the simple expedient of reducing the fuel carried.

[Archibald]

Just love the type 582...something for Tophe!  ^_^

[Zen]

Can we resolve this?

We need a fixed wing fighter design, that meets AW406 preferably designed in 1960-61 and ordered for delivery 66-67.
It needs to fold down to 52ft in length and 22ft in width, have take off and landing speeds that permit operation from the UK's then carrier fleet. Mach 2+ speed, 55,000ft ceiling, RAO over 200nm in strike, preferably 300nm and a loitering CAP of 2+ hours.

A single engine machine is easier to meet the demands of the RN and sell to the RAF.

Can it be done?

To my knowledge there is no UK design that actualy meets all the requirements for such a success at that time, only the later P141 and P146.

Unless a scaled P1152 can be developed......

[Archibald]

Maybe we can try with a (naval) Mirage F1? if this one is too little, there was scale up variants named Mirage F2 (two seats for strike) or Mirage F3 (one-seat for interception). They were powered by TF-30 derivatives engines, but we all know that the Spey was better.
Zen I think that a Spey-engined, naval Mirage F2/F3 could do the job...
PS. Here's a model of the F2 I made recently

[Zen]

Impressive model, is a scratch build?

It would seem to fit the profile of whats needed.

Source Dassault
Dassault

"In 1963, the Air Force general staff worked out the specifications for a low-altitude, all-weather aircraft capable of supersonic interception, and suitable for use on short runways with limited equipment, at an approach velocity of less than 140 knots (260km/hr). "

"On June 12, 1966, at Istres, Jean Coureau took off in Mirage III F2 01 equipped with a TF 30 jet engine. "

Mirage F2/F3
Span F2 = 10.5m (34.5ft), F3 = 9.04m (29.66ft)
Length F2 = 17.5m (57.4ft),  F3 = 16m (52.5ft)
Weights unladen F2 = 9,800kg (21,560lb), F3 = 9,300kg (20,460lb)

Max speed F2 = mach2, F3 = mach 2.2

Engine F2 = TF30 for 84.3kN (18,967.5lb), F3 = TF306E10 for 101.4kN (22,815lb).

---------

The landing speed is the relevent part here, at 140kts its within reach of carrier operations if they can bring it down by 10kts which once you take away a the forward speed of a carrier is down to 105kts, a modified version of the F2 might be able to achieve just that.

Which rather raises the question why did'nt Dassault offer a version of the F2 to AW406? This would be a interesting option to consider and compare with the P.39/MirageIII derivative offered.

[Archibald]

It is a slaughtered Mirage 2000B. I noticed that the cockpit of the two-seat 2000 (B/D/N) is very similar to the F2/G. Wings and tail are made from cardboard, as usual, and the main undercarriage come from a Viggen.

Wait a minute, what's that?

This would be a interesting option to consider and compare with the P.39/MirageIII derivative offered.

I never heard about that... is it linked to the Mirage IIIK ? (spey powered, it's all I know about it!).

[Archibald]

I was intriguated by the P39 / Mirage III derivative that you mentionned. I searched in B.S.P, and found that it was based on the Mirage IIIV VTOL fighter.

This was a monster powered by eight RB-162 for vertical flight and a TF-30 derivative for horizontal flight. The proposal date back from october 1961, but the IIIV didn't flew until february 1965!
To my mind there's a timing problem. AW-406 included VTOL configurations and was cancelled in 1963 in favor of the RN P.1154...
After the demise of the P.1154 (spring 1965) CTOL naval fighters were considered once again, and the Spey-Phantom was elected.  
The Sea Vixen succession is a very complicated story...main problem with AW-406 is the (typical 60's) obsession for VTOL aircrafts full of lift-jets and the like.

[Archibald]

I agree with that... to my mind, four Adour (Jaguar engines) would have been sufficient (but more draggy?)
Why not getting ride of the 8 eight small engines and replace them by 2 or four engines hanged on pylons, under the "central" wing? For example, two speys... Such plane would look terrific!
We can also imagine the central part of the wing as an removable block. I mean, you change the whole 8 engines!
I also like Vickers VG concepts, with or without horizontal tail (from 581 to 593).
 

[Archibald]

Ok, we keep on with the basic configuration of the type 582 (twin booms, with the cockpit on the right and the radar on the left. But we get ride of the eight engines and replace it by two engines. Now, we found a place for this two engines.
- pylons under the central wing
- pylons above the central wing (like the Honda microjet)
- under the booms
- on wingtips (quite dangerous in case of engine failure)
- under the external wings
- buried on the external wings ala Meteor (there's already two booms, so a longer span would be necessary)