Would the Harrier exist without the Short SC.1?

Thanks for the thoughts and input guys.
I’d heard an opinion at one point that it was almost essential to preserve a Harrier here, because of the SC.1 connection. An argument which I didn’t see the logic in.

Precisely… the engine idea started with a French engineer, passed through the Americans to the British, then found its way to another Englishman via another Frenchman to develop the aircraft.

Then the Americans provided most of the funding & significant technical assistance in the development of the first flight articles. (1.2 & 1.3)

Then the Germans helped with funding of the development into a combat aircraft. (1.4)

So we see 4 nations intimately involved, all under the umbrella of NATO co-operation.

This (chp 1.1) http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav81.html is a good overview on just how multi national P.1127/Harrier development really was, long before the Kestrel.

Sadly, the SC1 was not the end of the money and time poured into the dead end of vertical lift engines. Look at the Balzac or VAK191. RR (Derby, I presume?) pursued this for several years.

Precisely… from ~1940 on, there were few barriers between R&D establishments in the “western allies”… and this continued through at least the end of the 1950s, including former enemies/NATO countries such as West Germany and Italy.

I think p01 is exactly right. The issue is not: did Shorts talk to Hawkers. All writers on Aero miss the point that (Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production/Supply/Aviation/Technology…) admit in contract prices as overhead some elements of firms’ Applied Research; Basic Research was done by us (at RAE &tc) and disseminated free in MoS Committees. I know of Gas Turbine Collaboration, Swept Wings Advisory, Boundary Layer Control Committees active 1962. There will have been a comparable forum – if only informal – where V/STOL was exchanged. Remember: very, very little aero-innovation in UK was funded by the firms. We did it all, and the fruits of our investment were passed to all – inc. US, and a bit to France through AGARD: mostly, a two-way street, which is why moaning about US stealing ..say M.52 is otiose. See area rule and Buccaneer, Whitcombe bodies and Victor B.2. All UK aerofoil sections are RAE, or NACA (or Gottingen).

AA.Griffith left RAE to join RR as Chief Scientist. He was enamoured of lightweight turbines as expendables in GW and as liftjets, and extracted MoS Applied Research money which took us to RB108, SC.1 as proof-of-concept vehicle: it was an FTB, not a weapon. RB162/XJ99 followed and many schemes/prototypes took that route. Deadweight in cruise.

M.Wibault invented his “Gyroptère”, which you might see as a logical extension of thrust-reverser buckets…but (then-Bristol Aero-Engines) and Hawker came up with a 1:1 thrust-to-weight scheme that attracted US MWDP and MoA Aircraft Research funding. Dirty big fan optimised for V/STOL, draggy in cruise. Niches emerged – at sea, and in copses near Gutersloh.

I believe the phrase is…you pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

I even stole his logo!

Would the Harrier exist without the Short SC.1? Yes.

The P.1127 Harrier was an early (maybe the first?) departure from the multiple lift and seperate propulsion engines idea by using just one powerplant combined with vectoring thrust for both its forward speed and VTOL needs.
BE53/Pegasus layout owes more to Frenchman Michel Wibaults propulsion theories than to the existing lift engine ideas, something that Bristol Engines’ Sir Stanley Hooker picked up on very early on, and Sir Sydney Camm not long after.
This was the master stroke that effectively turned heavy and very complicated and inefficient aircraft designs and prototypes into a lighter and combat capable machine.
Nothing is designed in isolation of course, and I dare say some systems like the puffer jet controls of the TMR & SC.1 influenced the Harrier design teams.

In propulsion terms I view the SC.1 as the end of one idea and the P.1127 as the start of a new one.

BTW I like your callsign AT, bit of a Richard James fan myself!

The Rolls-Royce facility at Hucknall, Notts played a pivotal role in the programme and is an important part of the local aviation heritage of Nottinghamshire covered by Newark Air Museum – RB.108s etc. 🙂

I never even knew about the Meteors involvement in the engine development. Thanks for posting that.

The Meteor FR9 link on the bottom of this webpage http://empedia.info/maps/28 has some interesting digitised VTOL related footage including of the SC.1 – although I’m not 100% certain about the location attributed to it. :confused:

Plus there’s the later Sea Harrier footage – although one of the external YouTube links on that section re the Alraigo incident seems to have been broken at the other end due to some copyright issues!!

I suppose the lineage starts with the Ryan X-13 through the “Flying Bedstead” to the SC-1 and then the Kestrel. Whether or not design departments communicated I imagine aspects of the technology would be being developed in tandem.