Hawker P1134

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 7 months

Posts: 24

More evidence of advanced state of UK aircraft industry in years past.

Attachments
Original post

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

any pics of it in flight

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 339

it never flew. it never even got off the paper...

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 1,303

More evidence of advanced state of UK aircraft industry in years past.

Unitl the MoD got their grubby little hands on it, and slashed funding in the 60's, which pretty much ended any hope of the UK keeping pace with (or ahead of) American development. There is a really good book on Secret British Fighter programs of the 50's.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 15

Josef Gatial now has images of the P1134 as well, at:

http://www.planespictures.com/index.php?c=1&t=1

The odd thing is; there's nothing else at all on this aircraft anywhere (at least via Google) apart from the above images and this thread. Even the Tony Buttler book, which I'm assuming is the one GDL means, doesn't mention it. You'd have thought with those specs. it would have a higher profile.

one nice plane a great what if...

Member for

20 years 2 months

Posts: 245

Yeah the Limeys had a lot of designs during the cold war. I fail to see why these designs are an indication of an advanced UK aerospace industry, when they didn't get far at all. It's not as if they were almost ready to put them into production. Most of the designs were cancelled in the very early stages.

One thing is certain at least, and that is that the UK's aerospace industry was far inferior to the aerospace industry of the French!

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

I have several things to say to the previous post, TSR-2, the original supersonic harrier (for which prototype engines were built), the V-bombers (must notably Vulcan and Victor Mk2s), Fairy Rotodyne, Bristol Belfast transport plane (bigger than the Hercules), Westland Westminster helicopter, Rolls Royce Olympus engines (powered the concorde) aswell as various other examples, not to mention the knowlednge and research done to produce these desighns.
The fact that they didnt get very far are more of an indication of britains economic and political situation following 6 years of near total war and the adoption of the keynesianist economic model post war which was part of a general lean to the left up til Magaret Thatchers coming to power.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

Sorry the Belfast was built by Shorts, oh yeah and I forgot to mention bloodhound, seacat, sea dart, sea wolf, and sea slug missiles, the Hawk training aircraft (probably one of the worlds most successful training aircraft)

I will admit that the UK aerospace industry went downhill spectacuarly after the 1960s but uptil then it was certainly the most advanced in the world, if not the most advanced.

i think the belfast airlifte ris still better than the yankee tin box herc, lol! comments please!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 12,009

I will admit that the UK aerospace industry went downhill spectacuarly after the 1960s but uptil then it was certainly the most advanced in the world, if not the most advanced.

Blackbird? XB-70? AIM-47? And even though you did say aerospace and not aviation, I won't go into the plethora of US space programs in the 1960s.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

I meant to say ONE OF, if not the most, sorry :o . And I was reffering more to the comment made that the French aerospace industry was more advanced than the British.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

I will admit that the UK aerospace industry went downhill spectacuarly after the 1960s but uptil then it was certainly the most advanced in the world, if not the most advanced.

To join in with Sean: Griffon, Trident, Mirage (including the Balzac and G-series), Alouette. Or Tu-22, original Su-17, AL7F, Mi-6, Tu-95...

So let's not make this into a "my d!ck is longer than his"-contest. When there is nobody to enjoy that extra length, discussing it is a bit moot me thinks. Especially using never-flown paper projects as evidence for an overall quality is totally useless: nobody ever could check if those designs would have lived up to their specs. There were plenty of promising paper projects which in the end failed miserably.

You also have to keep in mind that even though there were a lot of extremely interesting British designs around until the 1960s, a lot of them where the result of completely retarded doctrines. Sure, the TSR.2 would have been an excellent nuclear bomber or recce aircraft, and would have been a wonderful replacement for the F-105 with the USAF or the RA-5C with the USN. But it was a far less practical machine than the Canberra which it was to replace, or the Tornado which in the end took the role intended for the TSR.2 . Likewise, the (in it's day) excellent design of the Lightning didn't come close to it's full potential just because neither the RAF nor politicians really wanted or cared it to. Just face it: if you want to boast about former British engineering glory, then you have to swallow the bitter pill that it was Britain itself which broke the neck of that very same engineering glory.

One thing i have to say is that at least British engine technology has always been outstanding. Remember that in order to make the A-7 live up to it's design qualities, it needed a British engine (TF41 aka Spey) in order to make it work, rather than the absolutely hopeless TF30. But then again, the US was equally happy to go for French engines (J69). Or just never managed to match Soviet gearboxes as found in the Tu-95 or on the Mi-6.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

I did admit that it was the British who broke the neck of that engineering glory if you could be bothered to read my first post, nor was I criticising french engineering, in fact I was responding to the claim that the French aerospace industry was MORE advanced than the british up to the sixtys.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

...in fact I was responding to the claim that the French aerospace industry was MORE advanced than the british up to the sixtys.

Well, that is definately something which you can argue about.
They most definately were when it came to ramjet technology, for one. And i can't think of any British equivalent of Sud's work on turbine helicopters either. And the French did actually put supersonic delta wings into service, rather than the fat triangles of the Vulcan or Javelin.

You might try and back up your claim a bit. Unless you prefer to sound like just another empty-headed chestthumper.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

I already have, once again try reading post's before replying.
when did the french build the worlds 3rd largest turboprop powered aircraft?
when did the french make a VTOL fighter?
When did the French produce anything in the class of the V bombers?
I am not arguing that British aerospace industry was far superior to that of the french, just that the french was not superior to the british.
Where I will certainly agree with anyone who will say it, is that the modern french aerospace industry is very impressive, in fact everytime I see a Rafale I have to go and lock myself away for a while until the excitement passes!!! I would go as far to say that I would rather see the Rafale on the CVF's than the F-35s they are getting!!!

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

:( :diablo: :( :( Just remembered that the french did build a VTOL fighter :( :( but it didnt use thrust vectoring engines like the harrier

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 7,877

when did the french build the worlds 3rd largest turboprop powered aircraft?
when did the french make a VTOL fighter? [sic]
When did the French produce anything in the class of the V bombers?

When did the British build a ramjet fighter?
When did the British realise that you could put turbine engines in helicopters?
When did the British field an indigenous M2 theatre bomber?
When did the British build an indigenous M2 aircraft capable of more than point defence?
When did the British make a supersonic VTOL fighter?
When did the British make a four-engined STOL transport?

I'm not saying the French aviation industry was superior to the British - i like to think i'm informed enough to know such claims are only useful to fertilise the soil with. All i want to point out is the bigotry and ignorance of your statement that Britain's aviation industry was superior to that of the French.

Member for

19 years 4 months

Posts: 5,707

That was not the intention of my statement as I have said before, I realy do wish that you would read my posts before calling me ignorant, if you are trying to start some sort of battle, I am not biting, I have said in previous posts that I was not trying to argue that the British aerospace industry was superior to the french, yet you still insult me by calling me an ignorant bigot.
I hope that this is a case of you failing to read and understand my posts and not an attempt at a personal attack.