SsgtC
Banned
Had the 1957 Defense White Paper not killed it, could the Hawker P.1121 have been developed into a carrier borne strike fighter? The design seems to have had a lot promise that went unfulfilled.
I think the 1121 had a bigger wing, better at altitude but bouncier on the deck, that looks like the main difference..
What if Hawker, at the request of the FAA, enlarged the wing and added a BLC system to improve it for carrier operations and swapped out the RR Gyron for either a RR Spey or a Bristol Olympus to shorten development times?I'm not in a position to check figures directly, but I can tell you that the wing was fundamentally based on that of the Hunter - it's pretty tiny for an aircraft of similar size & weight to an F-4.
The closest you'll get would be the blown wing development proposed for GOR.339, which remains broadly the same, dimensionally (and would have had excellent properties at low level, btw). It's simply not enough - and you'd also have issues getting the control surfaces low enough for carrier use without fouling the main gear doors.
From the outset, P.1121 was designed for a 28" scanner for AIRPASS II - a set which would have given better performance, even in a single seat application, than just about anything else available worldwide for some years.
Had the 1957 Defense White Paper not killed it, could the Hawker P.1121 have been developed into a carrier borne strike fighter? The design seems to have had a lot promise that went unfulfilled.
So the short answer is that HSA did propose a naval variant to the USN of all things with folding wings.
From an RN perspective there are two problems with this design.
1. Main flaps conflict with the main gear doors, when they are open. Something that needed redesign.
2. Even with a nose fold, the length is too long for all the RN's carrier lifts. Only by folding with the hinge behind the cockpit would it fit....
However the 1960 GOR.339 proposal using Olympus Ol.29 was a fine machine for MRI or Fighter ops.
All it needed to improve it would be Tuplavov style podded main gear on the wing.
Oh yea of perfect recall!The naval proposal you refer to is a rather different beast entirely - not least being a two seater - for which only scant information exists. The differences are such that it is exceptionally unlikely to have been covered by the P.1121 project number in internal Hawker documentation.
The blown GOR.339 proposal dates to 1957/8 - GOR.339 had become the more clearly defined OR.343 by Feb 1959, and the Hawker submission by that time was P.1129, via P.1125 - a very different design and infinitely better suited to carrier development.
By that point, the primary choice for propulsion was expected to be either Olympus Ol.21R or Ol.15R.
I came across this in the Alternate Universe forum of Shipbucket recently, “Hawker P.1126 Hurricane II,” don’t know how realistic a design it is but it looks an impressive machine!
If the Phantom could land on a carrier, the single-engine and slightly lighter P.1121 could have, although it was naval aircraft from the drawing board...
Not quite. The Eagle is a smaller, lighter aircraft than the Tomcat. But they're isn't a same pilot in the world that would try and trap an eagle on a carrierIf the Phantom could land on a carrier, the single-engine and slightly lighter P.1121 could have, although it was naval aircraft from the drawing board...
There were plenty of variations of the P.1121, between 1100 and 1130. One of them could have been a lighter, naval variant (although I recognize, from my readings of Tony Butler, it did NOT existed).
I was using the Eagle and Tomcat as an example. Just because Hawker's place was smaller and lighter than the Phantom, doesn't mean it could just go oro and land on a carrier. Though as Rian said, if asked, I have no doubt that Hawker could have designed and produced a naval variant.There were plenty of variations of the P.1121, between 1100 and 1130. One of them could have been a lighter, naval variant (although I recognize, from my readings of Tony Butler, it did NOT existed).
An Eagle ? was that the name of the P.1121 ? And I never spoke of the tomcat but the Phantom. This is get very confusing pretty fast...
I often think that a subscale P.1121 with a RB.168 Spey could have been a world beater. Turbofan for better fuel economy and range, yet still big power, 10 tons or more. Tactical nuclear strike, recon, interception, A2A combat, naval multirole aircraft... compared to a Mirage III its advantage would be three fold
- spey more powerful and economic
- larger aircraft
- swept wing more flexible than delta (before FBW)
Size wize, it would have been right between the Mirage III (1400 build) and Phantom (5500 build).
It would fill the gap between the F-5E and Phantom long before the F-16, it would have been much like a Viggen, except without Sweden political issues. Compared to a Mirage F1, it would be larger and with a turbofan, hence far better range. 700 Mirage F1s were build.
A country seeking a supersonic fighter could pick four difference sizes, weights and cost
1 - F-5 / F-5E
2 - Mirage III
3 - P.1121 Spey
4 - Phantom
If such aircraft was available circa 1961-1966, it would be right in size between F-5 and F-4; and time-wise, right between the Mirage III and Mirage F1. plus it would have a big, powerful turbofan like a Viggen.
All this would make it rather unique and potentially, a big seller.