The Saunders Roe SR.A/1: The flying boat fighter

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 08/30/2017 at 12:35 • Filed to: planes you've (probably) never heard of, wingspan, Planelopnik

16

18

From the Planes You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of   Department of Wingspan , we bring you the Saunders-Roe SR.A/1 .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

UK Government photo

World War II in the Pacific presented challenges to the operation of aircraft that weren’t faced by pilots in Europe. Most notable was the fact that much of the the action took place over the open ocean, far from land bases. Large bombers possessed the necessary range for long-distance missions, but fighters did not. Japan addressed this problem by modifying the famed !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! by adding floats so it could operate from any smooth patch of water. However, the floats caused a considerable amount of drag and rendered the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! unable to tangle successfully with Allied fighters. But the idea of a waterborne fighter remained attractive, and the British firm !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! tried to overcome the problems suffered by a float plane fighter by eliminating the floats altogether and replacing the propeller engine with a more powerful turbojet. The result was the SR.A/1, unofficially nicknamed the Squirt, the world’s first jet-powered flying boat.

Photo author unknown

Outwardly, the SR.A/1 resembled most flying boats of the era. It had a boat-like hull with a high shoulder-mounted wing, and a tail raised above the water. Where it differed significantly was in its power plant. Instead of traditional piston engines, the Squirt was powered by two turbojets housed in the fuselage and fed by a large air intake in the nose. The !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! turbojets were the first to be designed with an axial flow compressor and, by the time they had been further developed and installed in the third SR.A/1 prototype, the Beryl had become one of the most powerful turbojets of its era, providing the Squirt with a top speed of 512 mph. The Squirt featured retractable outer stabilizing floats and an automatic mooring system so the pilot could dock without assistance and without getting his feet wet, as well as long beaching gear which allowed the fighter to taxi onto dry land. The single pilot was placed in an ejection seat high on the fuselage, but this severely hindered his visibility, and this deficiency was exacerbated when the clear canopy was replaced by reinforced canopy that all but eliminated rearward visibility. Though armament was never fitted, Saunders-Roe planned for four 20mm cannons in the nose and up to 1,000 pounds of bombs or rockets housed internally.

The third prototype TG263. Note the reinforced canopy. (Mike Freer via Wikimedia Commons)

The Squirt’s maiden flight took place on July 16, 1947, and while it showed good handling for such a large, thick-winged fighter, there was one insurmountable problem: the war had ended, and there was simply no mission for a flying boat fighter. Also, production of the engines had ceased when Metrovick left the gas turbine engine business, so there were very few engines on hand. Testing of the prototypes continued, but, with no role to play, the project was eventually shelved. It was resurrected briefly in 1950 during the Korean War, but by then there was only one SR.A/1 remaining, the others having been lost to crashes, and the project was officially retired the following year. The sole remaining Squirt now resides at the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! aviation museum in Southampton.

The Squirt, with its beaching gear extended, showing the nose-mounted air intake (Alan Wilson via Wikimedia Commons)

But some ideas are hard to die, and the demise of the Squirt was not the last hurrah for a water-based jet fighter. Convair made an attempt with the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! in 1953, but, like the SR.A/1, the difficulties of flying a small jet fighter from the surface of the water, and the compromises in performance, consigned the Sea Dart to a similar fate.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

More Aircraft You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

If you enjoy these posts, please join in the conversation and let me know. If you missed an episode, you can find them all at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Other aircraft also-rans can be found at !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 12:44

4

If your fighter doesn’t float, why even fight?

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 08/30/2017 at 12:52

1

That’s the first color picture I’ve ever seen of the F2Y. I always thought the stripes were white.

Chariotoflove > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 12:57

0

The only role I can see for a boat-fighter is if you had wanted to base a squadron somewhere you couldn’t build an airstrip and didn’t want to station one of your carriers. Otherwise, the water landing and takeoff part doesn’t get you out of the need for refueling and maintenance issues, which would require you to be within operational distance of a land or carrier base anyway.

Doesn’t mean I don’t desperately want one, though.

e36Jeff now drives a ZHP > Chariotoflove 08/30/2017 at 13:03

1

It does mean you can operate anywhere that has a boat dock, and your runway is essentially indestructible. Alternatively, it would be an excellent way to use a submarine as your carrier.

ttyymmnn > Chariotoflove 08/30/2017 at 13:08

2

I think that if you researched the way the Japanese used the Rufe you would see where the argument goes. Since it wasn’t a dogfighter, it mostly spent its time harassing shipping. The Japanese had occupied many islands that didn’t have airstrips, and the Allies bypassed those and isolated them as they island-hopped their way to Okinawa. So the Rufe was a great solution to providing air cover for those little islands, operating from lagoons and offshore. So the Squirt likely would have been used in much the same way, attached to islands or shoreline and freeing up carriers for other duties.

Chariotoflove > e36Jeff now drives a ZHP 08/30/2017 at 13:10

0

That’s true. Bombing an airstrip would then not be a viable way of grounding your enemy’s fighters if he had these. However, I don’t see getting around the need for a land base in the long term.

You could use a sub for refueling on a mission, I think, but I don’t know if it would be viable as a base of operations. I’m thinking about the subs of the 1940s.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 13:23

1

Arguably, it’s not a bad idea to design a floating fighter for COIN or to fill the gaps in one’s air coverage vs. bomber attack, if you don’t have AWACS and the SM-2 missile stocks to fight a prolonged engagement. So, the 20mm and a couple of AA missiles or bombs model rings true to me. Something like a seaborne A-37. The main disadvantage vs. a carrier is force projection, where as a carry-onboard for a destroyer times about six or eight it would do quite well for a smaller nation with limited runway space.

The ideal customer would be a nation that didn’t have the funds to go in for an AEGIS, but was indigenously producing a tin can with seaplane cranes. So, if Hawaii were an independent nation, or maybe the Philippines if they weren’t under US protection. Trouble is, it would take serious outside (US, UK or similar) R&D to make the plane to sell them...

X37.9XXS > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 13:42

2

But what if it could submerge

ttyymmnn > X37.9XXS 08/30/2017 at 13:44

3

I read your comment on the notifications window, and my first thought was “That would be some serious Gerry Anderson shit.” Then I clicked through and saw your picture. Bingo.

user314 > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 13:55

2

I had a similar shock the first time I saw the X-1 in color. All those B&W films I’d seen, I had no idea it was orange.

The Sea Dart was a good looking plane, too bad that’s all it had going for it.

The underpowered engines made the fighter sluggish, and the hydro-skis were not as successful as hoped; they created violent vibration during takeoff and landing, despite the shock-absorbing oleo legs they were extended on. Work on the skis and legs improved this situation somewhat, but they were unable to resolve the sluggish performance. The Sea Dart proved incapable of supersonic speed in level flight with the J34 engines; not helping was its pre-area rule shape, which meant higher transonic drag.

Makes you wonder though, had they been able to work out the kinks, what it would have been like if the Sea Dart, the Martin SeaMaster , and the Convair Tradewind had actually seen service.

ttyymmnn > user314 08/30/2017 at 14:05

1

I think that all of those aircraft were, by the 1950s, anachronisms. The heyday of the flying boat began in the 1930s and ended with WWII, and improvements in range and the establishment of the aircraft carrier in WWII spelled the end of most waterborne aircraft, the Be-200 being the notable exception, and they have only built 10 of those to date.

ttyymmnn > user314 08/30/2017 at 14:07

2

Also, the SeaMaster would make an excellent topic for this series.

user314 > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 14:15

1

Oh lord, the political machinations around the SeaMaster and USS United States alone would make for a doctoral dissertation.

AfromanGTO > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 15:42

1

Why no pictures of the Rufe????

I have this model kit. It is the very first model kit I ever got, and I have yet to build it.

ttyymmnn > AfromanGTO 08/30/2017 at 15:47

0

Cause it’s not about the Rufe? I gave you a link....

AfromanGTO > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 15:54

2

I know... But pictures are better than links. :)

Are you going to discuss the BE200 sometime?

ttyymmnn > AfromanGTO 08/30/2017 at 16:07

1

I don’t really consider the Be-200 to be a plane that you (probably) haven’t heard of. I like to shoot for more obscure stuff, also-rans, etc. But it is definitely a cool bird.

AfromanGTO > ttyymmnn 08/30/2017 at 16:52

1

Ah ok. I thought it would be a good one, since it is not well known in North America.