dark light

The Hawker P.1121.

Hi everybody, I normally reside in the modern military aviation forum however I though this may be of interest to the guys here, if not I will repost in the Modern Military Aviation Forum.

Any way, a few years back I aquired an article from the september 11th 1959 issue of ‘The Aeroplane and Aeronautics’ magazine about the P.1121. I never got a chance to read it and put it to one side eventually stumbling on it recently.

It is a very detailed article, however there is one paticular thing that stands out. The article appears to infer that the aircraft was originally intended as a fighter and provides good evidence to suggest this. Firstly the article points out that the prototype was to be single seat and powered by a Gyron engine(apparently this was the most suitable for a high altitude fighter but not optimum for a low level strike fighter).

Some of the more informed among you are probably wondering why this is so interesting to me, but the reason is that before I read this article the only reference I had come across was for the 2 seat version for the TSR-2 requirement.

It seems that Hawker created 3 very different variants from the one basic design.

1) A single seat air superiority and light strike fighter.

2) A steal winged high altitude interceptor capable of Mach-3 and above.

3) A two seat long range strike fighter (all ordnance carried externally).

A further note on the engines, Hawker apparently regarded the de Havilland Gyron as the best engine for high altitude flight, whilst the Rolls Royce conway represented the best option for a low level strike aircraft (due to its low fuel consumption) and the Bristol Olympus was considered the best compromise for a dual role aircraft.

I have always had a fascination with his aircraft as I believe that it would have given the British aviation industry a real ability to compete on the global combat aircraft market against the likes of the Mirage 3/5/50 series and the F-4 phantom, possibly into the 1970s.

All comments, questions or additional information and pictures very welcome, thanks for reading.:)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,324

Send private message

By: ollieholmes - 9th April 2007 at 19:34

Cheers ollie, there are clearly some very talented people around!:eek:

There are some truly amasing models on there. And they all fly.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

5,730

Send private message

By: sealordlawrence - 9th April 2007 at 19:07

I will get some photos online later of my P1121. Re the Fairy Delta 3, i dont have a photo but heres a photo of the FD2 by a very talented modeller:
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/rapgal4.htm
You have to scroll down the page a bit.

Cheers ollie, there are clearly some very talented people around!:eek:

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,324

Send private message

By: ollieholmes - 9th April 2007 at 19:04

I will get some photos online later of my P1121. Re the Fairy Delta 3, i dont have a photo but heres a photo of the FD2 by a very talented modeller:
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/rapgal4.htm
You have to scroll down the page a bit.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

5,730

Send private message

By: sealordlawrence - 9th April 2007 at 18:06

Thanks for the info XN923! I assume this is something that comes up here fairly reguarly but does anybody have any pictures of the Fairey Delta-3, th one that was selected? I have only ever seen artists renderings with 3 engines rather than 2?:confused:

Ollie, photos would be most welcome if you do not mind!;)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,083

Send private message

By: XN923 - 4th April 2007 at 08:28

From what I could tell reading Bill Gunston’s ‘Secret Projects: British Fighters’ book, the main problem the P.1121 had was that the Air Ministry just did not seem interested. The original aircraft of this line (the P.1109 I think) was submitted for the F.155T requirement but was one of the first contenders to be booted out. In retrospect it seems Sydney Camm’s problem was in creating an eminently practical aircraft that relied on known technology and would have been likely to meet the production deadlines. The Air Ministry evidently wanted an interceptor the size of a Lancaster which was capable of Mach 3 and was an all-singing, all-dancing weapons system with collision course missiles like airborne Bloodhounds. The aircraft which won was the Fairey Delta 3, an enormous beast with two Gyrons and armed with Red Hebes. Its speed would have been restricted by heat buildup from skin friction rather than power or aerodynamic limitations. The more practical Fairey submission, based heavily on the Fairey Delta 2 research aircraft, was also rejected at an early stage. This would have also made an excellent fighter.

Hawker’s aircraft was rejected because it did not meet the performance requirements and did not take a ‘weapons system’ approach – in other words it was an airframe with weapons bolted to it afterwards, not an integrated unit with weapons designed to complement aircraft and vice versa (One wonders just how many aircraft in the late 1950s were designed in this way). Camm was given some encouragement to develop the design as a strike fighter, but eventually this was also rejected. The Gyron was fitted to a mock up of the P.1121 but suffered from surging. An Olympus was also fitted and this worked well apparently.

It was all killed by Sandys of course, but I think it was unlikely that the P.1121 would have reached production anyway, as it was not what the Air Ministry wanted. Having said that, even if the Fairey Delta 3 had reached the prototype stage I can’t see that it would have not been cancelled at some stage as it would have been an incredibly expensive and impractical aeroplane. The Hawker might then have been well placed to step into the breach. (In addition to the ‘sensible’ Fairey submission there were also submissions by de Havilland – resembled a cross between a Phantom and a Starfighter – and English Electric – bigger, area-ruled Lightning – which would probably have resulted in effective aircraft).

I think the P.1121, or a derivative thereof, was mooted as a competitor to the TSR-2 but probably not all that seriously. In any case it suffered from the same ‘not a weapons system’ complaint as it always had, whereas the BAC proposal had integrated avionics aplenty.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,324

Send private message

By: ollieholmes - 4th April 2007 at 01:27

Thanks ollie, great model, best of luck with yours.;)

Thank you. I could post some photos if you are interested.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

5,730

Send private message

By: sealordlawrence - 3rd April 2007 at 20:41

Im currantly building a free flight model of the P1121 from Steve Bs plan. The photos on the other thread show his complete example, mine i have done 90% of it i just have to carve the spine on it.

Thanks ollie, great model, best of luck with yours.;)

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

2,324

Send private message

By: ollieholmes - 1st April 2007 at 01:56

Im currantly building a free flight model of the P1121 from Steve Bs plan. The photos on the other thread show his complete example, mine i have done 90% of it i just have to carve the spine on it.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

1,455

Send private message

By: merlin70 - 30th March 2007 at 19:30

Some info about the P1121 previously on FP

The mock up front section resides in store at Cosford. See previous thread.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=40768&highlight=p1121

tc

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

5,730

Send private message

By: sealordlawrence - 30th March 2007 at 17:14

During that period in the 50’s the British aviation industry had some marvellous concepts, sadly a combination of difficulties was conspiring against the industry! We can all name a few of them, however my favourite three must be:

1> The awful financial situation that Britain had been left in at the end of the 2nd World War.
2> The paragon of accurate crystal ball gazing known as the ‘Sand’s Report’.
3> The yet to be Labour government who went out of there way to bury what Sand’s had left!

I am sure that many of you can fill in the details. 😡 😡 😡

WF

That seems like a pretty good summary. However I would probably add some of the economic decisions of the time.

I should add that the first prototype reached the construction stage and the basic structure of the front and centre fuselage was completed in late 1957.

Member for:

19 years 1 month

Posts:

297

Send private message

By: Wessex Fan - 30th March 2007 at 17:06

During that period in the 50’s the British aviation industry had some marvellous concepts, sadly a combination of difficulties was conspiring against the industry! We can all name a few of them, however my favourite three must be:

1> The awful financial situation that Britain had been left in at the end of the 2nd World War.
2> The paragon of accurate crystal ball gazing known as the ‘Sand’s Report’.
3> The yet to be Labour government who went out of there way to bury what Sand’s had left!

I am sure that many of you can fill in the details. 😡 😡 😡

WF

Sign in to post a reply