Simon Chaddock Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 The Handley Page HP115. In the 1950s it became obvious that practical supersonic flight required a very limited wing span (ie within the nose shock wave) and this was likely to mean very high take off & landing speeds. UK research suggested that 'filling in' the entire area within the shock wave coupled with the high degree of vortex lift that can be generated by such a delta.might provide a workable solution. The result was the HP 115 slow speed (fixed undercarriage!) research plane. An interesting scale subject and an EDF? Edited By Simon Chaddock on 05/06/2015 10:46:57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuphedd Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I attempted to make a similar aircraft with the same sweep back angle EDF, yes it flew but the handling was somewhat exciting and unpredictable . The real thing , used to be at Cosford , dont know where its gone , but when it arrived at Cosford , I sat in the cockpit , one of my mates was a curator , only to be told with some urgency that as it had not been "inducted " the ejector seat could still be armed ,!! That would have been a quick exit !! They were good days cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 those were the days when we lead the world with our expertise ....all gone..the TSR 2 would still have been flying today. ken Anderson...ne...1........... lead the world dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We gave the Goblin to the Russians and they powered their |Migs with it. , we gave the all moving tailplane to the Americans and they were first through the sound barrier We scrapped the TSR2 so we might buy F111s. We mothballed the Harriers and the US Marines snapped up the lot. Now we might buy that abortion of a vertical takeoff aircraft which has half a ton of scrap metal at the front that is only used for the take off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We gave the Whittle Jet Engine to the Yanks in 1942 We gave the Cavity Magnetron to the Yanks (Airborne Radar) We contributed hugely to the Manhattan Project - they refused to share technology post 1945 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Posted by Pete Willbourn on 05/06/2015 10:23:07: The real thing , used to be at Cosford , dont know where its gone It's in the FAA Museum, Yeovilton Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I thought it was the Rolls Royce Nene we gave to the Russians, quickly copied by Klimov and combined with the aerodynamics derived from the Ta183 of Kurt Tank to make the Mig15. I saw the HP115 in Yeovilton last year. It is an easy design for an EDF, a bit like the He162. Definitely a good candidate for a model, I suppose the weaknesses might be lateral stability and very high induced drag in turns, but nothing that's impossible to deal with. Overall, I imagine it would be a sedate flier, just like the original. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 My mistake! I knew we have them a jet engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Cheers Peter, I thought I might be hallucinating when you said it was the Goblin because I always respect what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Pearce 4 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I was based at RAF Colerne when this aircraft was flown in to be stored at the museum. This was in the early 1970s and just by chance I was walking on the airfield when it flew in. It did a couple of low passes before its last ever landing. An unusual sight. In those days the museum housed several interesting aircraft including a Heinkel He 162. We were the C130 servicing base and some of the aircraft fitters volunteered there. Edited By David Pearce 4 on 05/06/2015 12:00:19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 About twenty years ago I built a semi scale model to this planform from foam insulation board [the type with a silver foil outer] and it was powered by an Irvine twenty on the nose. And yes Colin it's lateral stability rater touchy but it turned well enough under full power. With the nose well up one could get it to fly very slowly [ gentle turns only] but if you got below about twenty five feet in this attitude it was not possible to recover into normal flight, even with full throttle if you lowered the nose it would be on the ground before enough speed could be obtained for normal flight. Think I read somewhere that with out reheat once in landing attitude below a certain level it was the same for Concorde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 Indeed it was the thrust versus drag equation in landing attitudes that the HP115 was intended to explore. My intention is to build it very light in Depron (again! ) in order to fit an EDF within scale rear fuselage dimensions although I will allow myself an over size jet pipe. The problem is its polished aluminium finish which is very hard to duplicate in anything but ..... polished aluminium! So I might try actually covering it with baking foil. 'Spray mount' attacks the Depron but if you spray the aluminium and let it dry it does work - just! It also adds about 25% to the weight. Just as well Depron is very light to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Posted by Dave Hopkin on 05/06/2015 11:06:18: We gave the Whittle Jet Engine to the Yanks in 1942 We gave the Cavity Magnetron to the Yanks (Airborne Radar) We contributed hugely to the Manhattan Project - they refused to share technology post 1945 We, and our colonial cousins stole (sorry, 'borrowed') even more ideas off the Germans post WWII. Weapons technology, armour, swept wing technology, rocketry, drugs, axial flow compressors for gas turbines etc. etc. Edited By Bill_B on 05/06/2015 19:52:56 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Simon, spray mount and Kitchen foil doesn't sound ideal. As an alternative have you considered using aluminium self adhesive tape from a builders merchant. I bought a roll recently from Travis Perkins as I thought it might come in handy sometime!. Mine is 45m x 75mm but you can get it 100mm wide and it is 50 microns thick and comes with a protective paper backing that you peel off. It is just called 'Foil Tape' and is used for 'joining pipe lagging'. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 John, I think your experience provides a very accurate indicator and the issue of very high induced drag at high alpha on both the 115 and Concorde is a natural characteristic of these wide chord very low aspect ratio delta wings. Remember the horrific last moments do the Air France Concorde when the pilot struggled to maintain altitude as he lost engine power and induced drag progressively won over lift at the desperately high angles of attack he was forced to adopt in the vain attempt to complete a circuit back to the airfield. Simon, I guarantee that you will make this one work and I bet the flight characteristics will accurately reproduce the expectations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuphedd Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 Mine was a depron creation , excellent in a straight line , ( most things are !!) but turns have to be gentle , very ! Played about with CG , which did not actually make that much difference, ie not cg sensitive , so its all down to aerodynamics , apparently the airflow over a slender delta is not always chordwise ! It did drop into spins if provoked , but strangely recovered with the right input , which is quicker than your heart rate . and a note on the VTO fighter , dont Rolls-Royce make the lift fan ???? cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 I wish I'd seen that one Pete, it must have been interesting, to say the least? If the VTO fighter referred to is the STOVL version of the J35 that we are buying, I believe that you are right. The UK content of this plane is said to be 15%, I think. Better than nothing I suppose. Bill, Metropolitan Vickers first ran the axial-flow jet engine that later became the Beryl and predecessor of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire in 1941 and a Meteor was flying with two of them in 1943. The reason that we focused on centrifugal compressors initially was because it was (rightly) then assumed that jet engines of this type would be developed more quickly to be more reliable and powerful then, the axial engines would mature later. The Griffiths patents that the MetroVick engine was based on preceded the German work, as did the Whittle patents that were used by Pabst van Ohain to develop the centrifugal flow engine used in the He178. The Germans weren't first in everything and even when they were, they didn't always manage to do anything useful with it. The swept wing on the Me262 was chosen because they couldn't get the cg in the right place with the original design proposal, which had straight wings. Even though the 262 was very fast in level flight, it had a limiting Mach No. of only 0.82, which was less than a Spitfire, so the swept wing wasn't the reason for its' success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 F.35B:- overweight, underpowered, massively over budget and not out of the woods yet technically. In 1965 Hawker Siddeley were designing the P1154, VTOL/supersonic fighter, - until the Wilson Government cancelled it. Fortunately HS continued with the subsonic version as a private venture, which became the Harrier. Just as well they did as otherwise the Falklands conflict might have ended very differently. And why did we mothball the Harrier? To make savings to facilitate the F35B purchase? It can only end in tears! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Posted by Pete Willbourn on 05/06/2015 21:45:57: . and a note on the VTO fighter , dont Rolls-Royce make the lift fan ???? cheers It dosn't matter who makes that forward lift fan. In forward flight it is still so much scrap iron and wasted weight and space. Edited By Peter Miller on 06/06/2015 07:54:31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Not only the weight Peter but the lift fan is 50in wide which creates area rule problems for the F35 which affect the aircraft performance. This also affects the performance of the F35A and C variants too despite the fact they are not fitted with the fan. The (single) engine arrangement also precludes an integral weapons bay so that external stores also adversely affect the fighters performance. It doesn't matter if you are talking about a model or full sized aircraft, compromise is compromise, which is not good if you are trying to build an air superiority front line fighter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 We almost went back to the standard catapult launch/arrested landing on our new carriers [the extra cost now killed the plan] probably cheaper in the long run and we could have some well tried and tested F18's Or what about fixing up some Buccaneers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Miller Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I admit that I know very little about the F35 but it des sound a total mess. Is it true that the Indian Air Force or navy thought about having Typhoons converted for carrier operations? I think I hear something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I think it was an instance of UK Overseas Aid not paying off, Peter - The IAF short-listed the Typhoon with the Rafale and the Rafale won. The Rafale is capable of carrier operations - I understand the Typhoon just isn't built for it.... Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 Why would you want to put a Typhoon on an aircraft carrier Pete ? It's a defencive interceptor, not designed for bombing the whatsits out of ethnic minorities of dubious character (language modified to keep mods happy ). Should the need arrise, I'm sure plans will be in place to relocate to distant airfields as required (not thinking of anywhere British in particular), should air defence be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I wouldn't, Kev - but then I don't seem to be quite as confused as those responsible for Defence policy.... Pete ps Defensive interception it may have been designed for but they're adapting it for a ground attack role.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.