The American SR.53?

[The Rat]

If anyone saw my post requesting a cutaway illustration of the Douglas Skyrocket (got a beauty provided by Jari on Hyperscale) it's because I have a plan. Fondling the Revell Skyrocket that's assembled and awaiting paint, I had an idea; what if the US Navy had also hit upon the idea of a mixed power interceptor? The Skyrocket was already mixed power, but what if, instead of a jet boosting a rocket, the configuration was reversed? The jet exhaust in the bottom becomes a rocket exhaust for take-off boost, and a much more powerful engine than the Westinghouse J34-40 is installed for cruise. It screams off the carrier deck without need of a catapult, and gets upstairs in a hurry.

Now I need to scour the local shops for another model, figure out a suitable contemporary engine replacement, and start gathering hardware for weaponry, drop tanks, larger intakes, etc.

Sound like a plan? 

[sandiego89]

Like the concept.  Bring it on!   

[NARSES2]

Interesting idea and very much of the period, at least this side of the pond. I've almost finished reading the Bookazine "Secret Jets of Cold War Britain" which is basically about all the mixed propulsion proposals to F.155T. Fascinating stuff

[sandiego89]

I am sure the Navy would have loved having rocket fuel at sea

Mixed power plants just scream late 40's/early 1950's.  Think you will need some beefier undercarriage. 

[The Rat]

Think you will need some beefier undercarriage.

Oh yeah, that was my first thought. Was looking at something like the Skywarrior. Also have to find out the Skyrocket's landing speed, I'll probably need to come up with ways to slow it down somewhat.

[The Rat]

I am sure the Navy would have loved having rocket fuel at sea

Yeah, you got me thinking about having RATO pods instead. But I like the idea of having some extra fuel for speed boost in-flight if necessary.

[jcf]

I am sure the Navy would have loved having rocket fuel at sea

Mixed power plants just scream late 40's/early 1950's.  Think you will need some beefier undercarriage.

The engine used in the X-1 and the Skyrocket used ethyl alcohol and LOX, nothing exotic for the period
and less dangerous than aviation fuel, or the hydraulic fluid used in the hydraulic catapults.

Accidental ignition of hydraulic fluid in catapult system started a fire in Leyte (CV-32) at the
Charlestown Naval Shipyard, Boston. 32 sailors and five civilians killed, 40 injured. 15 October 1953.

While off Narragansett Bay, a catapult hydraulic fluid explosion, followed by secondary explosions,
killed 103 crewmen from the aircraft carrier USS Bennington (CV-20) and injured 201 others.
26 May 1954.

[jcf]

The USAF Republic XF-91 was a mixed-power interceptor design, turbojet plus XR-11 4-chamber rocket
motor, ordered in 1946 and first flew 9 May 1949, eight years before the SR.53.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-91_Thunderceptor





Grumman G-86 USN concept of 1948, one Westinghouse XJ-40 turbojet and a 5,000lb
thrust Curtiss-Wright rocket motor, the same canceled motor originally intended for
the XF-91.

Grumman G-118 USN concept of 1955, two J79 mounted side-by-side with a retractable
5,000lb thrust JP-4 rocket motor mounted between the turbojets.

[zenrat]

I am sure the Navy would have loved having rocket fuel at sea

Mixed power plants just scream late 40's/early 1950's.  Think you will need some beefier undercarriage.

The engine used in the X-1 and the Skyrocket used ethyl alcohol and LOX, nothing exotic for the period...

I suspect the issue would have been stopping the crew drinking the fuel.