Chris has a more nuanced view of Mr Sandys which I've read and agreed with.
In particular, the P.1121 was developed as a private venture from Hawker's failed bid for F155T so Sandys can hardly be blamed for cancelling it when the RAF never wanted it in the first place.
Nuanced view indeed, but Sandys did see the way things were heading. Even he relented and kept the Lightning and Red Top (twice). He was probably as much of a fool as those who would later cancel Nimrod MRA4, fail to support the Sentry and Sentinel fleets and only order 3 x Wedgies.
Maybe some of our industry/technical members could have a ponder on this interesting exercise:
Assumptions
Fairey FD3 continued and entered service in late 1960s
By late 60s/early 70s and beyond, the main strategic threat to UK is the ballistic missile.
UK (NATO) commitment is to European Central Front and GIUK Gap.
How many tankers (plus an AEW capability that did not yet exist) would be required to support a fleet of FD.3s (each armed with two, maybe four AAMs) to patrol the GIUK Gap?
For such a large airframe, the FD.3 appears to have a small fuel load; ~12,000lb with a centerline tank and two AAMs (happy to be corrected on this as the drawing is difficult to read, 300lb might be 800lb, doesn't feel right that number). The Phantom FG.1 has a fuel load (with three tanks) of ~22,000lb (and eight AAMs.)
Victor K.2 has a fuel load of ~91,000lb, but I can't find what the 'give-away' was for a GIUK Gap mission. I have the number somewhere.
Would I be right in thinking that every time an FD.3 was launched into the GIUK Gap to chase a Bear, we'd be looking at a Black Buck style refueling operation? That is an expensive hobby even before you factor in the AEW aircraft.
Could the FD.3 mix it with the Fishbeds and Floggers over the Central Front?
Here's a quick drawing to allow comparison of the players.
200 gallon external fuel = 1600lb extra fuel + 250lb weight of tank and support
12,000lb kerosene total
Takeoff weight: 49850lb
Fuel (kerosene) fraction was just 0.217 in normal configuration and 0.24 with external tanks. The only mission discussed is interception of high speed bombers, with ranges no longer than 200nm. Its not in any way suitable for patrolling or going long distances.
Brochure notes the rocket engine might not be necessary, in which case the HTP could be replaced by additional fuel.
Later on, the rocket engines would be dropped. This would allow additional fuel to be carried, but kerosene is a lot less dense than concentrated hydrogen peroxide, so you'd get less than 2300lb of fuel in the vacated HTP tanks. Deleting the rocket only saves 580lb.
While it would be great to get a full-scale replica of the P.1121 prototype built and flown, Paul, what do you say to any group using your research and other such information to build at the very least a full-scale plywood mockup if not an engineering mockup of the P.1121?
Sandys cancelled big cool pointy-nosed planes with big flamez coming out the back like any sensible schoolboy draws 'em, RAF roundels on the side and all.
Clearly a bad thing to do. Silly Billy.
Also I am now justifying the 'Fairey belly' I seemed to get over Christmas on a surprisingly unlikely ground attack requirement!
Assuming that someone has the money, time and effort to construct a flying replica of the P.1121, Paul, what engine would they use instead of the de Havilland Gyron turbojet?
This is what I feel is the most realistic and practical option. Akin to the "last Defiant ever built" which now resides at the Kent Battle of Britain Museum, using a number of original parts.
A static display would need no concerns of being flight suitable, and the enormous costs involved in that. That isn't to say that completing a static display version is cheap, just a considerably lesser and more viable option.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
