Non PCB BS.100 utilization?

[Lascaris]

Perhaps just thinking out loud. One of the major technical problems P.1154 was supposed to face was that BS.100 with PCB engaged will be having hot gas re-circulation while melting carrier decks and burning everything on the ground for land based aircraft.

Very well so... how about utilizing a BS.100 without a PCB? Without engaging PCB BS.100 was still generating 26,200 lbf thrust, 38% more than the contemporary Pegasus Mk101 in Harrier GR1 and 10% than the much later Pegasus Mk107. Potentially that enough to get a low supersonic V/STOL in the 1.3-1.5M range and for certain would make take STOL take off and landing much easier? Then if you posit similar evolution with the Pegasus final versions of the engine be the 1990s would be offering ~32,500 thrust. Maybe.

Thoughts?

 

[red admiral]

Thrust at higher speeds and altitudes will be significantly reduced without PCB increasing the exhaust velocity, even more so than the weather level static thrust differences. So almost definitely not supersonic. More like a Harrier with improved payload-range.

 

[alertken]

Big Fans: MoA had budget for a Demonstrator. RB178 won, 6/65 (to evolve as RB211). BSEL pitched jointly with SNECMA BS.123, which sampled B.Ol.593 turbine, BS.100 compressor. Losing, they jumped onto JT9D, causing RR to buy them and shut that idea down. SNECMA then leaped to CF6...CFMI.

 

[zen]

In theory....
BS.100 "Janus" offered sufficient thrust to potentially drive P.1154 above above Mach 1 in cruise.

My s.f.c figures seem a bit off and maybe represent partial PCB. But then they're likely deliberately skewed to favour other solutions to AW.406.

Ideally the dry s.f.c figure ought to be 0.6, which is superior to Spey/Medway 0.77.

A BSEL-SNECMA tie up on a big fan twin shaft engine is not too shabby an outcome. One of those Anglo-French AH scenarios.

 

[Archibald]

HS.681. Definitively.