AHC: an 1-engined Mach-2 fighter for the RAF

Archibald

Banned
Why do you say that ? If the Lightning did the job, that bird can do it. By the way, once procured en masse, the RAF can still go OTL (and RAAF) way and buy a batch of Phantoms for long range strike and air defence.
As for the RN... well better not to talk about CVA-01. The carriers are dead. Long live the Harrier.
 
If the Saro SR-177 fighter had gone ahead (with its international sales), perhaps the follow up aircraft a larger single jet engine, rather than the complications of the dual power-plant configuration.
 
The Vulcan had ejector seats for the pilot and co-pilot. The Nav-radar, Nav-plotter and Air Electronics Officer were supposed to die for their country.


the Victor was the same

the theory was in a total hull loss all 5 would be dead , but in a situation where the aircraft remained semi controllable, the pilots would concentrate on keeping the aircraft in such a position as to allow the rear crew to bail out through the hatch before banging out at the last minute
 
If the Lightning did the job, that bird can do it.

Why do you say that?

The First Lightning were delivered for service with AFDS in Dec 1959 a year and a half before the Mirage IIIC, and the Lightning stayed ahead of the Mirage development curve throughout the early 60s.
When would the RAF choose the Mirage, before it was proven to be good in 1961-63 or afterwards?
What does the RAF use in the interim?
Do they choose the IIIC, or the longer IIIE with more fuel, do the RAF keep the rocket to retain the climb rates?
How do these Mirages fare with a pair of heavy Blue Streaks instead of the standard light load of 2 AIM9B or 1 R530?
What is the performance of the Cyrano radar compared to the AI23?
 

Archibald

Banned
Hmmm... well... I was discussing a Fairey ER-103C, not a Mirage, for the RAF. :biggrin:
Complete with the Lightning avionics, radar and missiles.

The FD2 first flew in October 1954, exactly two years ahead of the Mirage III-01 and four years before the Mirage IIIC.
The XF-104 flew in February 1954 and the first YF-104A 17 February 1956.
A fighter FD-2 could fly by 1957-58, if Duncan Sandys don't kill it of course.
 
Last edited:
the Victor was the same

the theory was in a total hull loss all 5 would be dead , but in a situation where the aircraft remained semi controllable, the pilots would concentrate on keeping the aircraft in such a position as to allow the rear crew to bail out through the hatch before banging out at the last minute
We were shown round a Victor when I was in my school CCF RAF section. IIRC, when we were shown the cabin for the three rear crew members, we were told that there was some kind of airbag system which inflated to help push them out. It was a long time ago and no idea if that was correct (they could easily have been having us on - "dumb cadets!"), but at 15 I thought it sounded dead dodgy.

How do these Mirages fare with a pair of heavy Blue Streaks instead of the standard light load of 2 AIM9B or 1 R530?
A pair of Blue Streaks? Blimey, that's a helluva Mirage!
 
Ok, I'm awake now.

I was thinking of the Blue Jay-Firestreak, it weighed 300lbs, a sidewinder weighed 190lbs and an R530 420lbs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it the FD proposals were not making the small FD2 into a combat aircraft but making a bigger aircraft more along the lines of the F106? The 103B had the same wing but a bigger fuselage and the 103C used this bigger fuselage with 50% bigger wings. Certainly the Gyron and RR 106 & 122 engines are in the class of the J75 of the F105/106. So they aren't going to be Mirage alternatives, just like the Lightning wasn't.
 
One twin-engine Fairey proposal was the FD-3, like an Avro Arrow designed with a blunt pencil. Armament carriage including Red Hebe and Red Dean, much like Blue Steel, required a hefty vehicle. I'm glad it didn't happen. As I recall from when it happened, the Fairey FD2 was a high speed research aircraft that the government banned from flying over Britain, while the E-E Lightning was designed as a high-speed research aircraft/fighter which Teddy Petter was designing without any fighter provision. Neither FD or E-E was a fighter when the decision to axe one and develop the other was made. It is all AH country, but the Lightning, when chosen, was certainly immature.

How quickly the ill-starred R-R Medway was a forgotten. Sigh. It could have powered a nice single.
 
The RAF was in a pretty weird place in the mid-late 50s of being the only big aviation power without a transonic fighter in the vein of the F100, F8, Mig 19, Super Mystere. They more or less intended to go directly from the subsonic Hunter to the Mach 2 Lightning and SR177 by 1958 or so. OR F155 was to be the definitive mach 2 interceptor available from 1962, a bit later than the F4B.

As it turns out I think the Lightning pretty much covered F155 spec in 1960.
 
As it turns out I think the Lightning pretty much covered F155 spec in 1960.

I've read the spec, and opinions vary. The fact that the white paper caused cancellation of anything that could meet the spec does mean that there's nothing left but Lightning which does meet some aspects of the spec.

At least, it did not have to carry Blue Circle.
 
On the V-Bombers and escape systems. All were initially designed with the idea that the flight crew would ride in an ejecting "pod" but this was found to be too heavy AFTER the designs were finalized. Ejection seats for the pilot and co-pilot would fit and clear the airframe but it was found that adding extra ejectors was both to heavy and could not be placed to clear the airframe in most cases anyway.

The idea is that the pilot/co-pilot would try and hold the aircraft in a fashion that allowed the rest of the crew to bailout and then use their ejection seats to clear the aircraft themselves in "a timely manner" before it became a fireball. Theory meeting practice in reality of course...

To quote a pilot of a Vulcan I once talked to "At least the boffin's didn't get the same idea as you folks... Downward ejecting seats and low altitude flight now THERE's a combination I'd not like selling to the boys in the back end!"

I made the mistake of bringing up the movie "Thunderball" btw, and had them on the floor for a good five minutes, "Who'd want to have a 40ft long rubber seal between you and the great beyond all rigged with explosive to blow yer top when it bloody well felt like it?"

I did not bring up the Martin Seamaster which pretty much DID blow its top to allow full crew upward ejection...

Riain wrote:
How do these Mirages fare with a pair of heavy Blue Streaks instead of the standard light load of 2 AIM9B or 1 R530?

To which DaveB replied:
A pair of Blue Streaks? Blimey, that's a helluva Mirage!

What? The first stage is used for takeoff assist, (and to ensure the pilot, base commander and half the nation are awake and alert) while the second stage is a multipurpose weapon capable of taking out an attacking fighter, bomber, rogue nation, wander moon, wingman, or even the city where that guy who ogled your girlfriend happens to live...

Randy
 
Have Hawker work with SAAB on the Draken as a joint project. They can then build 2 versions for Britain. A fighter ground attack for the RAF and a carrier version for the FAA. Hawker can have production rights for exports to Commonwealth Countries.
 
On the V-Bombers and escape systems. All were initially designed with the idea that the flight crew would ride in an ejecting "pod" but this was found to be too heavy AFTER the designs were finalized. Ejection seats for the pilot and co-pilot would fit and clear the airframe but it was found that adding extra ejectors was both to heavy and could not be placed to clear the airframe in most cases anyway.

The idea is that the pilot/co-pilot would try and hold the aircraft in a fashion that allowed the rest of the crew to bailout and then use their ejection seats to clear the aircraft themselves in "a timely manner" before it became a fireball. Theory meeting practice in reality of course...

It was doable if circumstances permitted. The bit about the pub makes for a good story :) :
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=55306

My father attended that crash as an RAF fireman, but also attended another Victor crash (possibly the one above) that was notable as the first where all five crew had survived.

To quote a pilot of a Vulcan I once talked to "At least the boffin's didn't get the same idea as you folks... Downward ejecting seats and low altitude flight now THERE's a combination I'd not like selling to the boys in the back end!"

See the B-52, F-104 etc. There were theories about rolling the latter at least to permit safe ejection at low level, but that might be tricky for the B-52.

I made the mistake of bringing up the movie "Thunderball" btw, and had them on the floor for a good five minutes, "Who'd want to have a 40ft long rubber seal between you and the great beyond all rigged with explosive to blow yer top when it bloody well felt like it?"

I did not bring up the Martin Seamaster which pretty much DID blow its top to allow full crew upward ejection...

Not quite blowing the top, but the rear portion of the cockpit fairing on the Vulcan was jettisonable

dc74625ea332131d58de47af7eb46e4e.jpg
 
Top