The one thing thats missing

[zen]

Once uppon a time I thought it was 'just out there...somewhere', and what that was, was a twin Avon powered two seater fighter, with a decent sized radar dish designed in the UK sometime between the 50's and 60's.

Nothing 'radical' you understand, just reasonablyh supersonic, toting at least four radar guided AAMs.
It could have swept wing, or maybe a delta (not a 60 degree one mind).
It could have a conventional tail or maybe a canard.

Something that could be navalised idealy. Fitting down the existing lifts, and not requiring 250ft stroke catapults and CVA-01 type runouts for arrested landing.

Something approximate to a British F4, but it does'nt have to be as good in all areas, just reasonably able to perform the fighter missions.

But its not there.

I've seen nothing like it.
Scimitar FAW, is almost there, but the supersonic ones seem to have too small a radar dish and they all have issues with the tail structure and noise.
True HSA's P1125 is about the best, but its such a short lived idea, not that well developed, focused on OR339 and just a bit too long.
In fact the closest seems to be a French design, SO.4060 I think.

It bugs me, so much so, thesedays I've taken to doodling my own designs to see if its possible. Which it does seem soi, and only presents the question, why did'nt they come up with this?

 

[Jemiba]

Perhaps a variant of the English Electric P.8, modified as it was
intended for the VG Lightning with lateral intakes, allowing for a
much larger nose cone ?

 

[zen]

Well that has the problems of VG, and a rather stalky undercarridge, plus potential problems with that new inlet. Its not quite the simple option and relies on VG to deliver.

 

[elmayerle]

It could almost be an evolved CA-23 with a nose change for a proper radar installation.

 

[zen]

Certainly it has elements in the right direction.

How big an effort would it be to change the front end for AI radar and two shock inlets?

Crucialy whats its take off and landing speeds?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It could almost be an evolved CA-23 with a nose change for a proper radar installation.

I doubt the CA-23 would be the good basis of a simple design. While it looks very advanced from the outside it has forward fuselage mounted engines with very long exhausts and the problems that entails. It would be almost impossible to change the intakes with a large radardome without significantly increasing the frontal profile.

I think the aircraft Zen is looking for is Sir Sydney Camm's favourite the Hawker P.1121. It doesn't have twin Avons, instead using a single Olympus but it is the well balanced, 'simple', British strike fighter of choice of the late 50s, early 60s.

 

[zen]

Well like I said the P1125 which reuses the wing and tail from the P1121 is almost there.

And yes if we drop the need for twin engines, then the P1121, albeit with podded main gear is a very good contender, especialy in its late two seater strike fighter form with the Olympus OL21R.

Again a bit too long for the existing lifts but a compromise maybe achievable, either cutting the lift well to get the extra length or folding the aircraft behind the cockpit.

I keep comming back to Camms design, and finding its the best option for the industry and the military, compared to what happend.

Curious thought.....I wonder if you could fit a pair of smaller engines into a modified rear fusilage of the P1121....? Something like what was done to some Soviet designs. Maybe around a pair of RB153s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A closer look at BSP: Fighters indicates a perfect match to the Zen requirement. The Supermarine Type 576. Which was a 1959 'Super Scimitar' proposal with twin Avon 300s (or the preferred RB.136s), nose radar, four Red Tops, carrier compatibility and Mach 1.8 at 65,000 feet.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

P.1125 was originally a twin Avon fighter version of the P.1121 (conceived when funding for Gyron seemed under threat) that was later on adapted to ground attack.

I'm in agreement with Roy Braybook, a single advanced Avon with reheat engined fighter could have been a winner. A real "supersonic Hunter", affordable, competing with the Mirage. When designing the P.1103, a mid-size version with advanced Sapphire or Avon was considered, but rejected as it could not meet F155T. P.1121 was compromised by being based on P.1103. Typical Camm parsimony, to not waste the work done on P.1103, which was undersized for F155T, but this made it a little too large for the "limited war fighter" role IMHO. More like an F-105, and we know how well that sold...

 

[zen]

Potential structural problems could bedevil both reheated Scimitar and SeaVixen Variants.

In that sense Blackburns offerings of supersonic Buccaneers seems more achievable.

But idealy not having structures behind the reheat exhaust nozzles is the certain path to avoid this sort of problem.

Thats why the P1125 and the French SO.4060 look better IMO.

Single engined light fighters are fine for the RAF, though it does'nt solve the need for a heavy bomber destroyer, but my interest is more towards the FAA.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But idealy not having structures behind the reheat exhaust nozzles is the certain path to avoid this sort of problem.

On the Type 576 Scimitar in BSP: Fighters the three view shows the afterburner ducts being angled outwards by around >5 degrees. The only structure between the nozzles is the tailhook bay. The whole configuration looks a lot like the Phantom IIs. Certainly a lot less structure to be heated than an afterburning Buccaneer.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

A closer look at BSP: Fighters indicates a perfect match to the Zen requirement. The Supermarine Type 576. Which was a 1959 'Super Scimitar' proposal with twin Avon 300s (or the preferred RB.136s), nose radar, four Red Tops, carrier compatibility and Mach 1.8 at 65,000 feet.

That was the aircraft that came to my mind as well.

http://www.vickerssupermarine.org.uk/576.html

BTW, I'd love to see a picture of the fighter/fighter-bomber, twin RR Avon, version of the Blackburn Buccaneer. Please.

 

[zen]

Type 576....

If memory serves of the picture, its not clear what the size of the radar dish is. Looks rather small IMO.
Besides which is that the twin seater?...never mind I'll dig the book out and check.

But the noise problem, is a problem, precisely because the tail is low down on the fin, near the reheat nozzles and from the look of it inside the cone of noise generated.
Whereas on the Buccaneer the tail is at the top of the fin and far from the source of noise as well as better located to be outside the cone of noise generated leaving the reheat nozzle.

As i said, idealy, you have a low fusilage mounted tail, with the reheat nozzles at the extreme rear of the plane, like on the P1125 or SO.4060, which avoids the noise issue completely....or you have canards which is even further from the problem.

No one said the F4's tail is ideal, but it was designed to take the punishment of being so close to the reheat nozzles and the noise they generate in operation. Building on the knowledge of such the US aquired from other aircraft like the Demon if I reccal correctly.
Same with the Jaguar, but that cannot be said of the Scimitar, precisely because it was not built with reheat to start with...mores the shame as then it might have both thrown up the problem earlier as well as driven a solution. Type 576 is going to face that issue, and its going to have to be dealt with at some cost and possible delay.
No if we look at the Scimitar its really got to start with the machine the FAA ordered, the Type 566 FAW. That has a lot of whats needed.