Saro Princess as a patrol bomber?

ps #5: 11/43 article: well found!

sw: you would need to delve into MoS Specs. 10/46 (for BSAAC) and R.36/46 (for RAF MR). I believe them to be intended as a common base.

Short had been funded 1940, jointly with Saro (wing) for S.35 Shetland, flown 12/44 as Mk.I for MR. Saro had failed on Lerwick. Short was nationalised in disgrace (dilatory Stirling production), 3/43; Vice Chairman Arthur Gouge became V/Chairman and Chief Executive of Saro and attended to restoring their reputation (they were shadow source for Supermarine Walrus/Sea Otter, and were Sister Firm to Catalina and Coronado).

First Brabazon Committee in March,1943 defined Types (in the Flight article: “the Development Programme”), with a landplane (to be Bristol T.167 Brabazon I) as the Transatlantic to match gargantuan Convair XC-99/Douglas XC-74/Lockheed XRO-6. There was no need to fund a marine Type, because MAP redefined Shetland No.2 prototype as a transport, and MAP owned, thus wholly-funded, Short’s, producing transport variants of Sunderland/Seaford, which would match any civil Coronado/Mars/Mariner.

In March,1945 UK (coalition) Govt. issued policy paper British Air Transport, to set up parastatal Br.S.American, and Br.Overseas Airways Corpns. (trading from 1/8/46). Funding and fleet procurement would be by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, with Ministry of Supply as Agent. In this period: Saro’s ads. on Flight’s front cover: like ps’ article, these were pitches by (now, Sir) Arthur for little Saro to be favoured over big boys like Vickers, Denny/Blackburn, or the customer’s captive, Short. And they succeeded, in May,1946 with funding, to Spec.10/46, for R&D +3, later assigned to BSAAC. 4 were added in 1948 for BOAC. Spec.R.36/46 was deferred, re-issued 12/11/48 as R.2/48, won as Saro P.104. Specs and more info in Buttler/BSP 2004,P.143.

Thank you, people. Excellent advice, and references, as always.

I’ve had a quick look at both the Putnam book by Peter London (Saunders and Saro Aircraft since 1917) and the booklet by Bob Wealthy (The Saunders-Roe Princess Flying Boat Project) and neither have any reference to a patrol bomber role. There are various other proposals mentioned including the AEW variant referred to above as well as a twin-hull version, a landplane and the re-design that would have resulted in the Duchess jet flying boat. Also mentioned is the still-born plan by Aero Spacelines to use the three Princess ‘boats, Guppy-like, to transport Saturn V rocket components. There was also serious consideration given to US Navy use of the Princess as a nuclear powered testbed. Bob Wealthy’s presentation notes for a talk given to the Hamburg branch of the RAeS in June 2010 mentions the Glenn L Martin Company in this context whilst the recent book by Robert E Bradley (Convair Advanced Designs) states that Convair looked at the feasibility of a nuclear test bed too. But nothing about a patrol bomber!

Pondskater is spot on… they started the survey in 1942 with an emphasis on Empire routes… according to Tagg and Wheeler they discovered that flying boats were not part of the Brabazon committees report so this probably also had a bearing on the companies decision…

Zeb

. . . the Saro Princess was initially postulated to be a patrol bomber, not a flying-boat airliner. Could this be true?

No. Everything I’ve seen says it was commissioned with the intention of it being used by BOAC. The origins of the Princess goes back to SARO’s conviction that very large flying boats were more efficient than smaller boats and ideal for cross ocean flights.

SARO published “The case for the flying boat” in 1943 arguing for very large aircraft of up to 200,000lb (A Sunderland was 65,000lb)

The report is mainly aimed at civil aircraft – it does mention military options where it states “The future requirements of air transport cannot be met by merely adapting military designs; they demand new and specialised development.”
See Flight Nov 25 1943

It could be argued that this move to ever larger aircraft originated in the R.14/40 design specification which became the Shetland – but that is heritage of the design ideas not a change of use of a design part way through

AllanK

Im not sure about before building but there were tentative plans afterwards to create an AN/APS 20 equipped AEW/Tanker platform for the Royal Navy from the airframe, although I suspect this was more wishful thinking from SARO’s perspective desperate to see the three airframes used…!

There’s a rather nice illustration of the beastie at the back of AE Tagg and Raymond Wheelers book about SARO, “From Sea to Air”

Zeb

I don’t suppose it’s too far fetched – after all the Bristol Brabazon ‘evolved’ from Bristol’s proposals for a 100 ton bomber.

With a few changes to their bomber design, Bristol’s were able to come up with their Type 167 – the Brabazon.

Ken

Therby hangs a very good question which I am sure someone will answer for us very quickly.