Supplemental Guidance

[kitnut617]

I think the heat of the Pegasus engine would have been too much for the cardboard P.1154.....

Worse still, it was supposed to be 2 vectored Speys, with plenum chamber burning 🔥🔥🔥

I don't think so Doug, for starters, the air intakes would have to be twice as big as what they are on the P.1154, they would have to be like the Spey engined Phantoms ---

[Weaver]

I think the heat of the Pegasus engine would have been too much for the cardboard P.1154.....

Worse still, it was supposed to be 2 vectored Speys, with plenum chamber burning 🔥🔥🔥

I don't think so Doug, for starters, the air intakes would have to be twice as big as what they are on the P.1154, they would have to be like the Spey engined Phantoms ---

There were two projected versions of the P.1154:

RAF version with one seat, short wings and a single BS.100 engine, which was a scaled-up Pegasus.

RN version with two seats, radar, big wings and twin Speys with crossed-over ducting for the front nozzles.

The airflow requirements were about the same for both.

[kitnut617]

RN version with two seats, radar, big wings and twin Speys with crossed-over ducting for the front nozzles.

I've read about it H, but it was just a proposal and didn't go very far. Besides, have you ever compared a P.1154 with a Phantom ?

[kitnut617]

Talking about the P.1154, has anyone wondered about the strange design of the P.1214 & P.1216 projects. It's all related to PCB development.

And that gives me a thought, Mods, how about these two project, I've got a kit of each one to build, would they fit the criteria ?

[Weaver]

RN version with two seats, radar, big wings and twin Speys with crossed-over ducting for the front nozzles.

I've read about it H, but it was just a proposal and didn't go very far. Besides, have you ever compared a P.1154 with a Phantom ?

IIRC Rolls-Royce persuaded the RN, so the twin-Spey version was the official RN proposal up to the point where the RN version was dropped entirely in favour of the Phantom.

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

[PR19_Kit]

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

That wouldn't surprise me. Seeing the real thing at Yeovilton, the BS100 is ENORMOUS! 

Quite how hot the forward nozzles would have been boggles the mind looking at the size of them!

[PR19_Kit]

Talking about the P.1154, has anyone wondered about the strange design of the P.1214 & P.1216 projects. It's all related to PCB development.

And that gives me a thought, Mods, how about these two project, I've got a kit of each one to build, would they fit the criteria ?

Good question Robert.

I suspect they wouldn't fit unless they were modelled as a Hawker Private Venture and painted as such.

Under the usual system running in the UK at the time the MoD would have contracted Hawker to build one or more prototypes, but they would have paid for them, and thus the aircraft would have carried roundels etc. not a prototype scheme.

Jon?

[jcf]

Would the Boeing XF-32 be acceptable finished in say "Raspberry Ripple" or QinetiQ livery be acceptable?

I don't think so.

Being in Raspberry Ripple or a Qinetic scheme would indicate that the aircraft had been already adopted by the military, which means it's out of the acceptable area for this GB.

What do you think Jon?

(In any case the F-32 is SO ugly that we'd probably ban it just on that basis!  )

It doesn't fit for the reasons Kit stated. Note that there is a difference between a prototype that may
have part of its testing done by an organization like the RAE or the NACA/NASA and one that is taken
on as part of their fleet and painted in their colours at which point it is technically no longer truly
a prototype.
A couple of examples from US history demonstrating the difference:
The Bell XP-39 was put through extensive flight and wind-tunnel testing by the NACA, but it didn't
become part of their test fleet, thus it was always a prototype.

The GD F-16XLs were originally built as prototypes and later bailed to NASA for research purposes.
In GD colours it's a prototype so that scheme is valid, the various NASA schemes are not, including
the cool black scheme.


Prototype


Not prototype

Here's an interesting document on the F-15 prototypes, their various uses and the schemes they wore:
http://www.aviationarchives.net/F-15%20prototypes%20-%20Jan%20van%20Waarde%202012.pdf
Note the original square wingtips rather than the clipped wingtips of the production Eagle.

[kitnut617]

IIRC Rolls-Royce persuaded the RN, so the twin-Spey version was the official RN proposal up to the point where the RN version was dropped entirely in favour of the Phantom.

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

I think there's something wrong with those numbers H, here's a pic of the BS.100 running in a test bed. The intakes don't look a lot different to the standard intakes.

[Weaver]

IIRC Rolls-Royce persuaded the RN, so the twin-Spey version was the official RN proposal up to the point where the RN version was dropped entirely in favour of the Phantom.

The Spey had an intake mass flow of 204lb/sec so two of them would need 408lb/sec.

The BS.100 had an intake mass flow of 650lb/sec.

This implies that a single BS.100 would actually need more intake area than two Speys.

I think there's something wrong with those numbers H, here's a pic of the BS.100 running in a test bed. The intakes don't look a lot different to the standard intakes.

That isn't a BS.100 in the test rig, it's a Pegasus with two Tornado afterburners grafted onto the cold nozzles in order to test ground circulation effects: https://aviationheritageuk.org/news/harrier-test-bed-on-the-move/

The BS.100 wasn't just a Pegasus with PCB, it was a completely new and bigger engine. The Pegasus had a 48" diameter fan while the BS.100 had a 60" diameter one.

[zenrat]

You are all wrong.  This is in tact a Harrier in the process of being assimilated by The Borg...

[tigercat]

I don't suppose they'll be eligible but have seen in books on luftwaffe aircraft talk of pre production aircraft and always wondered what exactly they were.  Are they the link between prototype and production line ?

[zenrat]

The way I understand it Pre-Production aircraft were used to tweak the design once in had been finalised.  They incorporated any design changes identified from test flying the prototype(s) and were a last chance to identify and make required changes before production began.
For aircraft produced in quantity they would be the link between hand built prototypes and mass produced series production machines.

[PR19_Kit]

What Fred said, yes.

Pre-production anythings are definitely out as far as this GB goes, prototype means what it says on the tin, the VERY first item that was built, be it aeroplane, car, truck, boat, ship, tank or shopping trolley.

[zenrat]

If anyone want's to whiff up a prototype shopping trolley for this GB they have my full backing.