Saunders Roe P.177 / SR.177

I'd try to read the ECKO site and their description.

Try this page for what I'm on about.
http://ekco-radar.co.uk/kensims/bluesky06.php

The set did produce a pencil beam for guiding the beam rider, in the basic setup they trialed it was fixed to the aircraft axis, and the pilot had to keep the target dead ahead while the missile was in flight.

Presumably the full weapon system would have some mechanism for keeping the beam on target even if it veered away from the fighters axis?
 
I've never really seen the appeal of SR.177 myself.
Overscan
Click to expand...

Only four years late - but I am with you brother!!
I guess the British just had to get the German WWII Rocket Interceptor thing out of their system!

Regards
Pioneer
 
zen said:
I'd try to read the ECKO site and their description.

Try this page for what I'm on about.
http://ekco-radar.co.uk/kensims/bluesky06.php

The set did produce a pencil beam for guiding the beam rider, in the basic setup they trialed it was fixed to the aircraft axis, and the pilot had to keep the target dead ahead while the missile was in flight.

Presumably the full weapon system would have some mechanism for keeping the beam on target even if it veered away from the fighters axis?
Click to expand...

Zen,

the guidance set for Blue Sky was Radar Ranging Mk.2 (ARI 5869), which is what the Ekco site describes. Note that it was really just a guidance set, no search function: the pilot was expected to acquire the target visually (presumably after being fed in by GCI); approach target in a narrow cone astern; lock the radar on using GGS for alignment; then manually track the target through the GGS for a number of seconds while the missile was in flight. AI.20 was a different radar altogether, different requirements, and was only ever intended for guns or Firestreak.

yellowaster
 

Attachments

  • AI20.jpg
    AI20.jpg
    281.7 KB · Views: 493
PMN1 said:
I've cut and pasted this from another site

.

Top speed was limited due to cheap materials for mass production.
Click to expand...
Hi PMN1,
"Top speed was limited due to cheap materials for mass production"
I have never heard of this before, it was my understanding that the airframe limit for the service aircraft was expected to be about mach 2.78 at altitude.
Originally MoS wanted an all steel airframe/wing but Brennan said "No", mach limit of a proposed developed aircraft with a "new" steel wing was to be in excess of Mach3.
Turning circle at altitude was expected to be a quarter that of the Phantom.
SR177 better at altitude than the Typhoon.
 
Gosh I don't know. Memory plays strange tricks. Perhaps it the statement the AI.20 was to similar things to the Fireflash guidance radar.
 
zen said:
Gosh I don't know. Memory plays strange tricks. Perhaps it the statement the AI.20 was to similar things to the Fireflash guidance radar.
Click to expand...
Hi

One more point of interest, for the Naval version drawings show the jet engine was to be vectored to give STOL performance, has any one got details please?
 
In Derek Woods "Project Cancelled" an internal layout is shown, said to be
the naval version, but there seem to be no signs of thrust vectoring.
 

Attachments

  • P-177.jpg
    P-177.jpg
    59.7 KB · Views: 835
Split the intake either side and enlarge the radar nose, displace a little of the ventral fuel and add a second seat in tandom with a slightly rasised cockpit to improve vision and you do indeed have something of a single engine Phantom.
 
Hmmmm...nice to see that picture up, I have a rather poor photocopy of a rather poor version from the Saro book.

You can see how much room the AI.23 set takes up, a bigger dish is going to increase the length of the nose and cause problems for visibility.
But it might be do-able if they change the inlet to something closer to the F8 Crusader.

Vision should be good for landing, I see little problem there as is.

The whole 'thrust vectoring' thing is a little odd, but my take is this is a periode of exploration of what is both possible and practical for naval aircraft. Lowering landing speeds was major preoccupation for the RN.
SR.177 is from various sources to have vicariously:-

1. Some thrust diverted to a small nozzle between the main gear for direct lift, reducing the forward speed needed for safe flight.
2. Vectoring main engine nozzle as per the Shorts PD.13
And then 3. the RAE study for blow over the wing. Which is the most appealing of the three.

Still wondering about that AI.20 comment, was'nt the set an X-band CW type?
 
AI.20 was a conventional X-band pulse radar. Its main attractions were its simplicity and light weight. It was intended to go into the P.177 at one point - probably because it was the only single-seat radar which looked like meeting the dates. However, I suspect that decision changed once the AI.23 dates became firmer.
 
sealordlawrence said:
The thrust vectoring reference may go some way to explain the truly odd wiki edit that states that the RB.153 was the German engine choice as variants of that had a sort of thrust vectoring in the form of an thrust diversion pipe. However the timelines are still wrong with the RB.153 not appearing until 1958 so it is almost certainly a typo.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone's got their wires crossed and is confusing the SR.177 with the VJ 101D.
 
References....

Somewhere here is the RAE paper, dealing with blow and the projected TO and L speeds.

The vectoring option is I think mentioned in BSP, but it might be Friedman.....no I think it was Friedman who stated the mini-nozzle (RALS?) type.

I'll recheck.

BSP1, page 112 "But the Admiralty requested a deflected jet flap in addition to blown flaps required by the Air Ministry"

Can't seem to find the other reference now, might take some time on that one.
 
Not much text on the craft in the book but these might be of interest...

"The fitment of the AI-23 radar essential for successful interception was the main cause of the considerable growth." Presumably from the SR 53?

"Production - Contract cover was received authorising production of nine aircraft, as below, with cover up to 27 aircraft with limitations.

XL 905 - 907 Development aircraft
XL 920 - 922 RAF Version
XL 923 - 925 RN Version"

"In order to save the project, proposals were made to build variants of the aircraft for research purposes. A number of schemes of various configurations involving wings of several different types, including W and reversed W planforms were devised, none of which proceeded beyond the early proposal stage."


Regards,
Barry
 
For take off I suspect the jet deflection was a non-starter, but for landing theres potential in the idea or at least the concept we're looking at here in lowering the approach speed.

At takeoff I feel reheat offered the more attractive option. Consider that the increase in thrust to 14,000lb is likely to produce better results on the 151ft stroke catapult than vectoring 10,000lb close to the CofG not to mention the issues of the hot jet and gases on both the aircraft and the flightdeck.

But then the alternative of using blow is viable in both cases, takeoff and landing.

Sr.53 had no radar, though I imagine the production variant would get a gun ranging set.
 
Partial thrust deflection on SR.177RN (30% is figure from memory, but may well be wrong) was intended for landing. It allowed the engine to be kept at max thrust while offloading the wing and providing boundary layer blowing air. In case of a 'bolter', the airbrakes (and possibly the thrust deflector too) would close in much less time than the engine could spool up, so it made sense.

If a turbofan (Spey maybe) was to have been used later on, it would have made even more of a difference due to their even slower spool up.

I always thought the X-32 CV version could have used this - a fixed variant of the vectored thrust system of the STOVL version. Might have saved the need for the re-design away from the delta wing.
 
yellowaster said:
zen,

regarding XD151 and the hole in stainless steel HTP pipe (20 SWG, 0.25-inch OD). Pipe was analysed by AID labs, who concluded it was electrical in origin, caused by arcing with a PVC-covered copper cable. The AIB report then goes on to state that the only cables in Spectre bay were instrumentation, load not exceeding 2.5A, and fuzed to 10A. Thus difficult to see how these cables could have produced the damage. Also concluded that there was no possibility of hole occurring post-crash. So cause of the hole seems to be a mystery. It seems odd that more isn't made of this in the conclusion of the report.

yellowaster
Click to expand...

Sabotage?
 
zen said:
For take off I suspect the jet deflection was a non-starter, but for landing theres potential in the idea or at least the concept we're looking at here in lowering the approach speed.
Click to expand...

Worth noting that jet deflection of this type was a design feature on the Grumman A-6, and flown on the initial YA2F-1 prototypes; the benefits were insignificant, and more than outweighed by the complexity, so was dropped by the time the initial pre-production aircraft were flown.
 
Didn't know that. Data/scientific personnel interchange, RAE:NACA/WPAFB was never closer than in the early weapon system period, late-1950s/early-1960s. We know of those R&D exercises that were (part-)funded in MSP/MWDP (such as NA.39, P.1127), and of formal Memoranda such as for atomic and GW work, but Joe Public is unaware of general exchange of Govt. Establishment experimental work.
 
A splendid piece of artwork recently posted on deviantART:

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Saro-Sr-53-408201121
 
Stargazer2006 said:
A splendid piece of artwork recently posted on deviantART:

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Saro-Sr-53-408201121
Click to expand...

Your right there!
 
CNH said:
That picture is a rip off of the lid of the Airfix kit, painted by Roy Cross.
Click to expand...

Allow me to differ. The angle is different (look at the wings) and the shape of the fuselage is more faithful to the real article.

The fact that there is some degree of resemblance could be a sign that the author was paying a tribute to the original artwork, but calling it "a rip-off" is certainly inadequate and insulting to his effort, in my opinion.
 
I think I prefer the term homage, and I'm guilty (OK, Adrian's hard work, but he can claim the Nuremburg Defence)

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Homage_1.jpg
    Homage_1.jpg
    352.4 KB · Views: 523
  • Homage_2.jpg
    Homage_2.jpg
    261.2 KB · Views: 497
sr177.gif

A model by Guy Finch.
 
In the excellent book British Aircraft Carriers by David Hobbs there is a three-view general arrangement drawing of the Saunders Roe SR177 but instead of showing the normal heavily framed canopy it instead shows a clear blown canopy instead, does anyone know if this was a genuine proposal please?
Thanks
Alan
 
The same author also states that the version with the single larger turbojet (RB.133 instead of Gyron Junior) the HTP tanks would have been converted to contain Avgas which suggests no rocket at all.
 
In the september 1956 issue of the Navy Monthly, that I mentioned before in this forum, there is an overview article of the Fleet Air Arm.
It mentions an order for a 'strike aircraft of high performance' (presumably the Buccaneer) and then adds 'Unofficially we hear of a rather revolutionary day interceptor'. Any idea what this can be? Elsewhere in the article, the trials of the DH110 and Supermarine N113 are mentioned, so it doesn't refer to those.
 
Maybe the Saunders-Roe SR.177 ? The only type intended for the RN, where the description "revolutionary"
would be somehow appropriate, I think.
 
Charlesferdinand said:
In the september 1956 issue of the Navy Monthly, that I mentioned before in this forum, there is an overview article of the Fleet Air Arm.
It mentions an order for a 'strike aircraft of high performance' (presumably the Buccaneer) and then adds 'Unofficially we hear of a rather revolutionary day interceptor'. Any idea what this can be? Elsewhere in the article, the trials of the DH110 and Supermarine N113 are mentioned, so it doesn't refer to those.
Click to expand...

Its the rocket and jet powered SR 177. HMS Eagle was being refitted at that time to cary the fuel tanks needed for the Hydrogen Peroxide fuel for the rocket motor.
 
I never realised that the SR177 was a navy project. Launching hydrogen peroxide powered fighters as routine operation would certainly have made life on board a bit more interesting.
 
If you have a look in Mr Buttlers book there is a mention of an order for 150 for the RAF and another 150 for the RN. It does seem rather a lot, but when you consider CVA01 were to have numbered at least 3 each toting around 18 of them then it starts to make sense. After all another say 24 in the OCS, maybe a dozen in the HQ Sqdn makes what 90 leaving the other 60 for attrition reserves and maybe just maybe a continuation of the 5 or so RNR squadrons? The tanks were aluminium I believe.

One thing puzzles me though. Surely the SR177 was a sprint to intercept type of aircraft with shortish legs. Now with the USN you have big carriers that could feasibly operate such a type PLUS another fighter with long legs for doing a standard CAP. So exactly how would the RN air group have operated? Would the Air group have been the 18 SR177, 18 Bucc, plus the half dozen Gannet AEW and COD plus a half dozen helicopters OR would there have been something completely different?
 
Good question. By the time the SR177 would have been operational, the FAA would have had Scimitars and Sea Vixens in service, and the SR177 is not an obvious replacement for either. Of course, they might have thought to have half a dozen or so fighters per carrier, purely as point defence against the dreaded high flying nuclear bomber. Given the specialist infrastructure that would have been needed to operate the rocket engine, it is questionable whether all that would be worth it just for a handful of planes.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom