Read the forum code of contact
By: - 26th December 2011 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One here...
http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/nouv1/p1154_04.jpg
By: - 26th December 2011 at 16:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are a legend Al....anyone have the Naval one???
By: - 26th December 2011 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Left profile:
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/P1154RNFAA.jpg
3-view:
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/701/p115404rnkf8.jpg
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k190/Mike_Fiz/P1154_rn_0001.gif
By: - 26th December 2011 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fascinating, I didn't realise they intended to use a catapult assisted take off. Interesting to see the American style nose gear launch bar.
By: - 26th December 2011 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think Cat capability was for the CVA01
By: - 26th December 2011 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Couple of rendered versions of them.
Freight Dog models have also got a 1/72 resin version of the single seater which is a rather tidy little kit.
By: - 20th July 2012 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's the P.1154 article (thanks to inkworm) (:
http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-hawker-p-1154-britains-supersonic-jumpjet/
By: - 21st July 2012 at 08:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Errr....
Quote from the Hushlit article.....
Lockheed Martin will have succeeded (in producing a supersonic STOVL fighter) where dozens of the world’s greatest aircraft design houses have failed
(my addition in brackets)
Lets keep a sense of proportion here......
Mirage IIIV was a supersonic STOVL fighter.
Yak-141 was a supersonic STOVL fighter.
True, neither of them entered service - but neither has the F-35 yet....
Ken
By: - 21st July 2012 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fascinating, I didn't realise they intended to use a catapult assisted take off. Interesting to see the American style nose gear launch bar.
The P1154RN was intended to replace the Sea Vixen as the Fleet's air defence fighter. There was no intention at the time to operate it from anything other than Fleet Carriers (both existing and CVA class) so it would make best use of existing facillities, including catapults. It would have been capable of free takeoffs, but as with other STOVL types it would have had payload restrictions, so it made sense to make it catapult capable to get off the deck with max payload and fuel. The only sea going experience with STOVL aircraft at the time was the P1127 trials aboard Ark Royal in 1963, and the most impressive aspect of these (to the Navy) would have been concerned with landing aboard as opposed to takeoffs. Even the Sea Vixen could make free takeoffs from a carrier (albeit using almost the whole deck length and little payload) but landing on was always (and to this day also) a risky business even with the angled deck. P11154RN offered conceptually the best of both worlds, catapult launch to get the plane in the air with full fuel load and max weapons load, then the aircraft could be recovered vertically like a Harrier at the end of it's sortie. CATOVAL, if you like, concepually the opposite of STOBAR which I have always viewed as the worst of both worlds (limited takeoff performance and all the dangers of hitting the deck at flying speed praying for a hook-up with the wire).
The Americans were beginning to use the nose tow catapult launch method in the 60s and it made sense to incorporate this into the P1154RN from the start. The P1154RN would alsop have been able to operate from existing RN carriers without modification (unlike the F-4 Phantom), but the increasing weight of the aircraft during development was it's real downfall, necessitating the use of plenum chamber burning (PCB, effectively an afterburner fitted to the forward cold air nozzles to increase thrust) during landings and vertical takeoffs. The Hawker test pilots who had flown the P1127 knew this would cause horrendous damage to whatever they had to land on and the aircraft itself due to FOD and are on record as stating they were happy to use PCB in level flight, but never vertically.
One wonders if given the reduced size and weight of modern avionics compared to the 60s, as well as lighter construction materials, a modern day rendition of the P1154 could solve those problems and not require PCB in the vertical mode. In any case, it is a shame the aircraft never made it at least to the flying prototype stage as it's contemporary the TSR2 did.
By: - 29th July 2012 at 12:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Flanker Man,
Thanks for your feedback, let me offer some clarification.
1) I was stating that getting a supersonic V/STOL (STOVL less so) supersonic fighter into service would be a first. Neither the Yak-141 or Mirage IIIV entered service.
2) Nor could the Mirage perform a vertical take-off and fly supersonically during the same flight, I believe the same is true of the Yak-141, but I'm not certain. I think the F-35B was the first to perform the so-called 'Mission-X'.
3) The Yak-38 was (very) marginally supersonic in level flight, but incapable of being so after a vertical take-off.
Thanks again
By: - 29th July 2012 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's an article on the Fiat G.95, Italy's equivalent of P.1154:
It would be great if anyone has further information on the G.95.
Thanks
By: - 30th July 2012 at 17:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The P1154RN was intended to replace the Sea Vixen as the Fleet's air defence fighter. There was no intention at the time to operate it from anything other than Fleet Carriers (both existing and CVA class) so it would make best use of existing facillities, including catapults. It would have been capable of free takeoffs, but as with other STOVL types it would have had payload restrictions, so it made sense to make it catapult capable to get off the deck with max payload and fuel. The only sea going experience with STOVL aircraft at the time was the P1127 trials aboard Ark Royal in 1963, and the most impressive aspect of these (to the Navy) would have been concerned with landing aboard as opposed to takeoffs. Even the Sea Vixen could make free takeoffs from a carrier (albeit using almost the whole deck length and little payload) but landing on was always (and to this day also) a risky business even with the angled deck. P11154RN offered conceptually the best of both worlds, catapult launch to get the plane in the air with full fuel load and max weapons load, then the aircraft could be recovered vertically like a Harrier at the end of it's sortie. CATOVAL, if you like, concepually the opposite of STOBAR which I have always viewed as the worst of both worlds (limited takeoff performance and all the dangers of hitting the deck at flying speed praying for a hook-up with the wire).The Americans were beginning to use the nose tow catapult launch method in the 60s and it made sense to incorporate this into the P1154RN from the start. The P1154RN would alsop have been able to operate from existing RN carriers without modification (unlike the F-4 Phantom), but the increasing weight of the aircraft during development was it's real downfall, necessitating the use of plenum chamber burning (PCB, effectively an afterburner fitted to the forward cold air nozzles to increase thrust) during landings and vertical takeoffs. The Hawker test pilots who had flown the P1127 knew this would cause horrendous damage to whatever they had to land on and the aircraft itself due to FOD and are on record as stating they were happy to use PCB in level flight, but never vertically.
One wonders if given the reduced size and weight of modern avionics compared to the 60s, as well as lighter construction materials, a modern day rendition of the P1154 could solve those problems and not require PCB in the vertical mode. In any case, it is a shame the aircraft never made it at least to the flying prototype stage as it's contemporary the TSR2 did.
The potential problem with CATOVL is weight of the aircraft. You have the STOVL systems and you need a strengthened airframe for cat launches on top of that. That being said, with EMALS with concept could be used at far lower power when combined with the angled nozzles and a ski-jump Operationally, like you said, it does seem like the perfect set up.
By: - 30th July 2012 at 23:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I love the F-4 look to the P.1154. Of course I'm glad you Brits bought the F-4 because some of my favorite Phantoms are the ones with Spey engines and a belly full of Skyflash?
By: - 31st July 2012 at 08:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two other thoughts on this would be on smaller ships the Skyhook concept and secondly could a cat launch be combined with a ski ramp for the 1154 or would this have been too risky a combination and restricted the use of any carriers for conventional aircraft as was seen with the recent carriers being specifically for the SHars and choppers?
By: - 31st July 2012 at 19:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two other thoughts on this would be on smaller ships the Skyhook concept and secondly could a cat launch be combined with a ski ramp for the 1154 or would this have been too risky a combination and restricted the use of any carriers for conventional aircraft as was seen with the recent carriers being specifically for the SHars and choppers?
The problem with Skyhook, and the main reason why it has never been used is that once you have a ship large enough to support the minimum number of operationally useful aircraft (about six, enough for a round the clock two aircraft CAP), that ship will be big enough to support a conventional flight deck and ski jump, as you are effectively into 'Chakri Narubet/Garibaldi' territory. Look at any of the concept drawings of skyhook ships, and they all feature a conventional heli deck aft; Harriers have been landing on escort sized heli decks for decades (or at least had the capability to do so). If you can land on the helipad why do you need skyhook?
Also Cats and Ski jumps really fall into the category of either/or; If you are going to the expense of fitting a cat then you may as well fit the full sized one and get your aircraft off the deck at full flying speed (130+knots). A ski jump gets you off the deck a lot slower (80+knots) but gives you more time to achieve flying speed before you fall into the sea. Try to go up a ski jump at 130+knots and the compression on the nosewheel oleo will inflict severs damage.
By: - 31st July 2012 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I suppose it is all a bit like the rubber deck trials, an interesting theoretical exercise but when put like that it is amazing that the skyhook concept is mentioned so much in Harrier books as it must have been a popular concept at some point.
Considering how much more effort and fuel would be required to 'dock' after a patrol and possibly in the dark compared to just dropping down onto a heli deck which has a slightly larger target area it really any competition.
By: - 31st July 2012 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The silly thing with Skyhook is the concept for the launch vessel was an adapted 6 thousand frigate. With the hanger for the Harriers plus all the support stuff including sizeable jet fuel storage you would be left with a terribly compromised design! As already pointed out the idea of recovering at night in the North Atlantic with a low fuel state is rather terrifying. Also if the skyhooks stop working or the complex internal aircraft handling elevators and the whole ship is put out of action as a combat type.
If you want to take six Harriers to sea the Sea control concept 'Chakri Narubet/Garibaldi'is a far better solution!
Posts: 387
By: giganick1 - 26th December 2011 at 15:03
Hi,
Does anyone know where a 3 view of this is avaliable
Nick