Javelin vs Sea Vixen

More what ifs…

If BEA hadn’t insisted on DH redesigning the Trident, the Medway would probably have been approaching production status at around the time the FAW.2 was being developed. The most powerful dry Spey hadn’t got much more grunt than the 11,250 lbs of the Avon 208s used in the FAW.2. The Medway was supposed to start at approaching 14,000 lbs.

Thats a good point about the Spey power, they must have been looking to get more performance with area ruling, and a small wing change but nothing significant so I think like the thin wing Javelin only just supersonic.

However the extra fuel capacity of the Mk2 and the more economical spey would have extended its range considerable over the the Mk1. Plus advantage of sharing the engine with the Buc S2.

I must have missed the post regarding a mightier engine.

More what ifs…

If BEA hadn’t insisted on DH redesigning the Trident, the Medway would probably have been approaching production status at around the time the FAW.2 was being developed. The most powerful dry Spey hadn’t got much more grunt than the 11,250 lbs of the Avon 208s used in the FAW.2. The Medway was supposed to start at approaching 14,000 lbs.

Spey engined Sea Vixen

My understanding is that the original offer for the Mk2 Sea Vixen included Spey engines, twin cannons and some area rule tweaks as well as the extended booms and Red Top. This would have had a dry supersonic performance.

However budget limits restricted the update to Red Top and the extended booms.

I believe re heat was ruled out because of the fatigue issues on the tailplane caused by the acoustic shock waves from the re-heat.

As for the Javelin, it was simply slower and considerable less manouvarable than the Sea Vixen (which was very manouverable but lacked guns to exploit it) and eventually fatigue killed it.

I remember asking a ex Scimitar / Buccaneer S1 pilot how the Javelin and Sea Vixen compared. He said it was like night and day in favour of the Sea Vixen, with it proving effective against V Bombers and Supersonic target simulations with Lightenings. As for Javelins, which he faced as the RAF low level interceptor, you simply got down to the deck and left them behind as soon as you heard their Radar.

Given that there was ten years between the DH110 and the Sea Vixen FAW.2 (and thus the corresponding amount of years in, slightly advanced, development), could it not be the case that DH hoped that there would be a far mightier, dry, engine to do the job. From all accounts the aircraft didn’t lack power with on Avon, imagine what an Olympus could do for it. It worked for the Vulcan development.
This is purely for conversation sake here, the Javelin looks like it was designed with reheat in mind, ie engines right at the back, nothing surrounding the jet pipe orrifices, ‘T’ tail with no fin overhang of the pipes, so nothing in the way of the efflux.
The Vixen looks like the last design you would pick for reheated power plants, ie the jet pipe orrifices are surrounded by airframe (those booms are fairly close) and a slab tail, which looks like in some manouvres, would be right in the way of the efflux.
I’m guessing the main reason to consider reheat is to go supersonic, In which case both aircraft would need a chronic redesign (especially for the wings), I have seen pictures of the Gloster proposal along these lines, but not a De Haviland one.

Back, please, to booms and reheat. In April,1949, when G.A.5 and DH.110 were funded into development for RAF FAW fly-off, F.9 had run with reheat, AJ.65 not, though a lash up had been put on Nene. Blue Jay AAM studies at Fairey (to be Fireflash; one source, only one, says Fairey also began the German-derived IR work that was funded at DH in 1951 to be Firestreak) called for much weight/space, but guns were out of favour – one of Buttler’s books says work on (ex-Mauser, to be Aden) was suspended at this time. So, 6,500lbx2 on prototype would not suffice in production. The FAW designers must make provision for more grunt – reheat, or rocket motor boost – presumably ASM Screamer for G.A.5 and DH Spectre/Sprite for DH.110.

How does all this sit with Thread observations about 110 exhaust/booms/stab?

And for those of you who doubt the sea vixen’s potency, she can still hold her own against the most modern aircraft in the RAF inventory

There’s a rumour that she even gave some Typhoons a bit of a surprise at high altitude whilst on a ‘secondment’ to Coningsby last year…..:)

One thing though, could reheat have been fitted to derivations of the Sea Vixen? Its surprising how close the tail booms are to the jet efflux, would have thought afterburners could cause heat damage to the airframe in that area, and possibly the tail plane in some manouvres.

DeHavEng, is XP924 staying on the ground now? It looks lovely in its 899Sqn scheme.

it’s very doubtful that the Sea vixen in her current form could ever have been fitted with re-heat. The jet eflux would have had serious effects on the twin booms and more importantly her slab tail. If a Sea Vixen derivative were to be fitted with re-heat it would have involved a complete re-design to a more conventional layout. DH/HSA were planning a sapphire version as I understand with auxillary intakes above and below the main intake much like the elephant ears on the souped up Venom, a tight squeeze but a profitable one, most likely making her supersonic even with out re-heat given the additional thrust and the fact that now with all her RN fit removed XP924 is supersonic. the additional thrust should compensate for the additional weight.
As far as I am aware XP924 is grounded until such time as either sponsership and/or insurance can be found. She is maintained in airworthy trim and conducts fast taxi’s to keep the systems ticking over but until the money is ponied up she is a flightless bird. For further information I suggest a visit of dehav’s website, where you can find dates and times of any prospective runs and flights of Dehav’s fleet including my little baby the scarlet scooter (aka Gant XR537)

Thanks guys. At least now I’ve got it straight. As has rightly been said thpough, intake geometry can make a whole heap of difference. I think the early weapons trial Saab Lansen suffered a similar problem of gunnery induced flame out until they added the lip underneath the intake leading edge.

The question was asked earlier why some Javelins had flight refuelling probes. AFAIKR the probes were detachable and fitted for ferry flights. One Valiant could trail one Javelin from UK to Singapore in 4 hops. It would have been possible to tank a Javelin out in 2-days although 4 would have been the norm.

Unlike a Victor 1 trail which involved tanker-tanker top up etc before setting off the Valiant could do the whole on one tank of fuel. They may have had a reserve standing by but I am not sure about that.

Then which was better as a fighter?

In the Vulcan we could always win a turning fight against the Javelin by turning tight and climbing. I cannot remember a pairs attacks against us. OTOH the Sea Vixen was a different kettle of fish and against a pair very difficult.

I recall one exercise where we easily evade a pair of SV because of sloppy RT and laziness. As we turned towards one we heard “He’s turning towards my Cyril, you take him.” “OK Claude” or similar names. We reversed and they swapped too. We continued to weave and went right between the pair neither of whom made the turn.

Another incident was a trial of the ant-IR manoeuvre by the Vulcan. 300k 300ft, radar lock, chaff and IR fired, max angle climb, power off, 1000ft, roll hard through 90 deg, dive, 300ft reverse and resume original course and power back up.

Meanwhile lock broken, Sea Vixen 300ft, inverted, descending.

Immediately there followed a knock it off, endex, and a permanent ban on practicing that manoeuvre with a fighter in the 6 o’clock.:diablo:

The Hunter famously suffered from Avon surging when the guns were fired, where as the Swift didn’t, air inlet design has alot to do with engine surging and performance.
The Javelins Sapphires went on to have problems with blade expansion but you don’t hear of the same problem with Victor B.1s.

I heard tell that the “hockey sticks” vaporiser burners tended to break off in the Victor Sapphires.

The Hunter famously suffered from Avon surging when the guns were fired, where as the Swift didn’t, air inlet design has alot to do with engine surging and performance.
The Javelins Sapphires went on to have problems with blade expansion but you don’t hear of the same problem with Victor B.1s.

Ah no –
It was the other way around. The Avon surged, and the Saphires ran prefectly. A run rich system was adopted which adjusted the fuel when the trigger was pressed. The final solution for the Avon problems was to adopt the Saphire compressor design in all the later Avons.

I would imagine that it would be a run weak system, if you run it rich then you have more chance of surge.
Actually it was the first few stages in the Avon compressor that were to the AS design principle of limiting the temperature change over the stage. It was one of the features that changed the designation from AJ65 to Avon.

I get the impression that Saphires didn’t like anything other than pure air going down the intakes. Was it the Lightning which originally had Saphires but was re-engined with avons because the engines used to flame out when the guns were fired because the gun gasses were ingested by the engines?

Ah no –
It was the other way around. The Avon surged, and the Saphires ran prefectly. A run rich system was adopted which adjusted the fuel when the trigger was pressed. The final solution for the Avon problems was to adopt the Saphire compressor design in all the later Avons.

Bill Waterton (Javelin test pilot) said in his book, ‘The Quick and the Dead’, that he had outmanoeuvered the 110 in mock combat at 35000ft.
He was also pretty scathing about the Javelin’s controls and Glosters in general.
One RAF instructor I met sighed wistfully and said ‘to think that we could have had 110s’
Another chap I met said that it couldn’t be flown in cloud as the engines went out! Just the thing for an all-weather fighter. Never seen this mentioned anywhere else though.

I get the impression that Saphires didn’t like anything other than pure air going down the intakes. Was it the Lightning which originally had Saphires but was re-engined with avons because the engines used to flame out when the guns were fired because the gun gasses were ingested by the engines?

Surely one cannot compare the loss rate of a carrier borne type (night or day) with that of a land based fighter.
FAA losses were so bad in the late ’50s that a session of parliament was opened just to see what could be done about the large loss of aircrew and aircraft. I don’t know what the outcome of that was.
Both the Vixen and Scimitar were at the leading edge of flying technology, at a time when the FAA were arguably as well equiped as the RAF. Turbojet surging, long acceleration time and stalling all had their part to play, aswel as early swept wing limitations, all added to operating off a carrier didn’t make for a good mixture.
It’s interesting to read on that site that in most cases both aircrew were lost (not just the nav in his dark hole) which seems to suggest an accident that dosent allow for any reaction time. That seems in keeping with previous deck ops.
Its a good site that, and its good to see these unfortunate airmen remembered. Be nice to see a more general site for alll lost in this way.

Javelins were lost in fairly large numbers, but then there were alot more of those built than Vixens.

Buccaneers, there seems to have been a few S.1s lost (17 out of 54) but the S.2 faired much better, and the Phantom enjoyed a good reputation for safety.

http://www.seavixen.org/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.home:
“145 Sea Vixens were built. The loss rate was 37.93%. The fatality rate within those losses was 54.54%.”
Deck ops always dodgier than land F(AW), but, surely, worse attrition than Javelin?

IIRC The loss rate for Scimitars was even higher, around 50% – and that was a day fighter. Fast jet ops from carriers always tricky. The Sea Vixen FAW.1’s ‘coal hole’ with non-frangible hatch can’t have helped the loss rate. What is the Observer to Pilot ratio of that 54.4%

Does anyone know what Buccaneer loss rates were like? Phantom?

http://www.seavixen.org/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.home:
“145 Sea Vixens were built. The loss rate was 37.93%. The fatality rate within those losses was 54.54%.”
Deck ops always dodgier than land F(AW), but, surely, worse attrition than Javelin?

The Phantoms rear fuselage is heavily reinforced and protected just aft of the jet pipe area.

Could not the same be done for the Sea Vixen booms?

DH/HSA were working on a supersonic variant with reheated Speys, so I suppose they were confident it would not be too much of a problem.

The Phantoms rear fuselage is heavily reinforced and protected just aft of the jet pipe area.

Love both aircraft, but personally prefer the Vixen. Even the DH 110s looked very sinister (especially in black). I guess canons could’ve have been fitted where the rocket packs where, either side of the nose wheel.
One thing though, could reheat have been fitted to derivations of the Sea Vixen? Its surprising how close the tail booms are to the jet efflux, would have thought afterburners could cause heat damage to the airframe in that area, and possibly the tail plane in some manouvres.
At least the Javs jet pipes exited in the extreme tail of the aircraft.

DeHavEng, is XP924 staying on the ground now? It looks lovely in its 899Sqn scheme.

Looking at the ‘boom’ layout of the tail of both the F-101 and the F-4, both of which are pretty close to the exhausts and both of which have reheat, I imagine this would not have been a problem that could not be dealt with. Indeed, in between the F-101’s design and prototype constructions, advances in materials meant that the tail could have been moved from the top of the fin to the bottom – it was placed at the top to keep it out of the efflux when the burners were lit. This could have been done but was not, on cost grounds to the regret of Voodoo crews who were caught out by the deep stall and flat spin… but that’s another story.

Sea Vixen vs Javelin? No contest IMO.