Saunders-Roe SR.177

[concordski]

In need of a Saunders-Roe SR.177 for FS2002, a duel powered British aircraft which was cancelled because of defence cuts, an excellent aircraft:
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/sr_53_177.php
http://www.spaceuk.org/sr53/sr53%20pics.htm
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v1/v1n2/1saro177.gif
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v1/v1n2/2saro177.gif
I would like the SR.177, not the SR.53, thanks for any help!

SR.177 data:

POWERPLANT:
Mixed power, consisting of a De-Havilland Gyron Junior turbojet of 8,000 lb s t (3630 kgp) and a De-Havilland Spectre 5A rocket motor, also of 8,000 lb (3630 kg) thrust.

LOADED WEIGHT:
25,500 lb (11567 kg)

MAXIMUM SPEED:
Mach 2.35

MAX. CLIMB RATE (expected):
Over 60,000 ft/min (305 m/sec)

SERVICE CEILING:
67,000 ft (20420 m)

SPAN:
30 ft 0 in (9.14 m)

LENGTH:
50 ft 0 in (15.24 m)

HEIGHT:
14 ft 0 in (4.27 m)

ARMAMENT:
Two Red Top infra-red air-to-air missiles on wing tips in interceptor role. Underwing stores of 1000 lb (453.5 kg) with wingtip fuel tanks in strike role.

[Hagar]

cancelled because of defence cuts, an excellent aircraft:

I saw the SR.53 demonstrated at Farnborough a couple of times. I'm not sure how practical the concept was or how successful it would have been. If the idea worked I'm sure another country would have used it even after it was cancelled by Britain. It might have seemed a good idea when it was first proposed in 1951 (only 6 years after the end of WWII) but aircraft like the EE Lightning would soon be capable of Mach 2 without using rocket power. The first SR.53, XD145, was rolled out in June 1956. (The first prototype Lightning, designated the P.1, took to the air on the 4th of August 1954.)

The original requirement called for a ramp-launched rocket powered fighter which would climb under power and glide back to land on a skid. Later the requirement added a conventional undercarriage and a jet engine. Saunders-Roe and Avro each won contracts to build prototypes for a evaluation, with Avro producing the Type 720 and SARO the SR.53.

In reality this is just a natural progression of the Me 163 Komet concept which had a very limited range. Duncan Sandys had also been quite correct & the main threat would soon be from intercontinental ballistic missiles & not conventional bombers.

The main problem with an FS version of any aircraft with mixed powerplants is that the FS flight

[AndyG]

The RAF had every intention of operating the SR177 alongside the Lightning; they would have filled different roles, in the same way that the USAF operated F-4's alongside the later Century series fighters.

[Hagar]

You could be right. There were a lot of of exotic ideas floating around at the time & not all of them were too sensible. The top brass were never the brightest when it comes to forward-thinking. It was very interesting & they probably learned a lot from it. I looked on it as an interesting research project & never thought the idea was too practical even in those days. Rocket motors have a very short endurance although they could be used to rapidly boost the aircraft to the desired altitude. What happens after that is anyone's guess. Rocket motors are very thirsty & also potentially more dangerous than conventional gas-turbines.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see an FS version of the SR.177. I thought I'd seen an SR.53 for FS but can't find it with a quick search. It's quite possible the mixed-powerplant can be overcome in some way but I suspect this would only be by defining the rocket as an afterburner.

[concordski]

[quote]
The main problem with an FS version of any aircraft with mixed powerplants is that the FS flight

[concordski]

I saw the SR.53 demonstrated at Farnborough a couple of times.

Oh, according to the programme I saw the SR.177 was the only one demonstrated at the Farnbrough Airshow!

[Hagar]

Oh, according to the programme I saw the SR.177 was the only one demonstrated at the Farnbrough Airshow!

Not sure where they got that from. AFAIK the SR.177 was never built. I've never seen an example of it. http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v1/v1n2/saro177.html

PS. This is the SR.53 landing at Farnborough, probably taken during the 1957 Air Show.


This is far as they got with the SR.177. A mock-up, probably mostly of wooden construction, in the Saro works at Cowes on the Isle of Wight.

[Hagar]

It would be possible, I've seen rocket powered aircraft available for FS, so surely you could have 2 engines in, and a lever on the panel to switch between the two?

There's a rocket option in the FS AIR file but as there's no FS default rocket powered aircraft I'm not sure how you would set it up. AFAIK there's no way to switch between different types of powerplant so you can have one or the other but not both on the same aircraft. The only way I can think of doing this is by using the afterburner as your rocket motor.

[AndyG]

Hagar,

That's probably the way to do it, along with some effects/lighting work - having said which, Alphasim used RATO on their recent Mirage IV, I really must ask how they did it  ;)

If you ever spot that SR-53, please let me know - I get half a feeling I've seen one as well, but I think it was for another Flightsim (Flightgear maybe?).

In terms of 'exotic ideas', I think the idea behind it was to exploit the acceleration provided by the rocket to use it as a point defence aircraft; I guess in a similar way to the US Navy using the F-8 in a fleet fighter role, and the F-4 in a swing role.  Maybe I'm just imagining that though!!!

AndyG

[Hagar]

If you ever spot that SR-53, please let me know - I get half a feeling I've seen one as well, but I think it was for another Flightsim (Flightgear maybe?).

Hi Andy. I could be completely wrong about this. Just had the idea I'd seen one. If I find it I'll let you know.

In terms of 'exotic ideas', I think the idea behind it was to exploit the acceleration provided by the rocket to use it as a point defence aircraft; I guess in a similar way to the US Navy using the F-8 in a fleet fighter role, and the F-4 in a swing role.  Maybe I'm just imagining that though!!!

I have the advantage over many people as I was there at the time. Not only that but I was a young lad passionately interested in aviation & fortunate enough to see many of these projects in the air. I read anything I could find on the subject & think I was as well-informed as an ordinary person could be. I personally think that many people's ideas are influenced by the legend & not how it actually was. You have to put yourself back in time to appreciate how it appeared then, not with hindsight & knowing what we know now. Jet & rocket technology was in its infancy in 1950. It wasn't long after the end of WWII & many new British ideas were heavily influenced by the work & research of brilliant German aircraft designers that had been captured even before the war was finished. Rocket power for manned aircraft seemed the way forward to a great many in those days but they were ultimately proved wrong. I have no guarantee that what they told us at the time was true & can only tell you how I saw it.

[AndyG]

Hagar,

I understand what you're saying; that was certainly the background to the spec that led to the SR53, it was Saunders-Roe who thought of adding a 'get me home' turbojet.  

My understanding of the SR177 is that they were looking at both a rocket AND an afterburning jet engine - there was certainly some talk of a jet only ground attack version for West Germany.  The rocket was meant for quick dash acceleration, hence my theory about point defence.  Although I admit my knowledge is not first hand like your's, I feel that the 177 was a perfectly viable project - if Lockheed hadn't been underhand in their promotion of the Starfighter I think the story could have been different.  Mind you, with the way British defence policy of the '50s and '60s was conducted, it probably would still have ended up in the bin!

Now if we're talking daft projects, there's always the Fairey FD1!!!

[Hagar]

Hi Andy. You mentioned the Mirage III in an earlier reply. My knowledge of French aircraft is not so good as for British types but from what I've read the rocket engine was rarely fitted in service. They also had problems with some aircraft catching fire. It also involved removing the cannon & using it shortened the effective range.

The Mirage IIIC was armed with twin 30 millimeter DEFA revolver-type cannon, fitted in the belly with the gun ports under the air intakes. Early Mirage IIIC production had three stores pylons, one under the fuselage and one under each wing, but a second outboard pylon was quickly added to each wing, for a total of five. The outboard pylon was intended to carry a Sidewinder AAM. The twin 30 millimeter DEFA guns remained standard gun armament for following Mirage variants, though the number of stores pylons and types of external stores varied considerably. Details of external stores are discussed in a later section.

Although provision for the rocket engine was retained, by this time the day of the high-altitude bomber seemed to be over, and the SEPR rocket engine was rarely or never fitted in practice. In the first place, it required removal of the aircraft's cannon, and in the second, it seems it had a reputation for setting the aircraft on fire. The space for the rocket engine was used for additional fuel, and the rocket nozzle was replaced by a ventral fin at first, and an airfield arresting hook assembly later

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmir3.html

As I remember, the FD1 was just another research project. There were plenty of those around in those days & delta wings were "flavour of the month". The Farnborough Air Show was then quite different & far more exciting than it is today.

[AndyG]

Hagar,

Although the FD1 ended up purely as a research project it had it's basis in an Air Min requirement for a ramp-launched fighter, sort of an updated Bachem Natter.  I agree with what you're saying, that was really the problem with the British aircraft industry in the '50s and '60s, they were so busy 'playing' with concepts and fashionable ideas that the real work never got done - the jump from Meteor, to Hunter, to Lightning was a case in point, compared to the smoother progression of the Americans or the French.  Mind you, at least we never came up with an idea like the ZELL Starfighter.

My understanding of the rocket on the Mirage is that it was usually fitted, but rarely (if ever) used; I know the Australians removed it.  I was really just using it as an illustration that the idea was looked at elsewhere - however, there is also the RATO packs on the Mirage IV and the B-47 to consider

AndyG

[Hagar]

Andy

I've enjoyed our little discussion but as I could bore you for months with endless theories & stories of the old days it might be better to end it here.

I'll leave you with this thought. Very few British aircraft produced in the 50s & 60s were not influenced in some way by wartime German research. Some prototypes were almost identical to ideas that had previously only existed on paper in top-secret German drawings. Consider the highly advanced-looking Handley Page Victor & the impact it made when we first saw photos of it. Even more impressive in real life & it wouldn't look out of place today. I have often wondered how they could possibly progress from a conventional piston-engined bomber like the Halifax to something like that in one leap in a very short space of time. All became clear when a friend showed me the plan of a German project in a book he'd just bought. I forget the designer, the company & the name of the project but the similarity is striking, crescent shaped wings & all.

PS. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/victor/history.html
I remember seeing a Victor looped at Farnborough to demonstrate the stand-off bombing concept.

[AndyG]

Hagar,

Thanks for the entertainment.  Incidentally, your crescent winged German aircraft was probably the Arado 234, the V16 I think.

AndyG