# Saunders-Roe-Sr-A1-Jet-Fighter-Flying-Boat



## johnbr (Nov 4, 2019)

Saunders Roe Sr./A.1 Jet Fighter Flying Boat Original Saro Photo B19 1945 • £49.95 and net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 4, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 4, 2019)

johnrchambers 7y
I was an apprentice at Saunders Roe during the testing and developement of this Aircraft. The information above is incorrect as all three prototypes flew. TG 263 is still on display. TG 267 and TgG 271 were both lost. TG 267 on the 17th September 1949 going down off Felixstow and TG 271 going down in the Solent after hitting a submerged log and sinking.This airframe has never been located as far as i know.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Nov 4, 2019)

I have been always fascinated by this aircraft. Love everything flying which can swim as well. 
At the peak of global warming we will need such machines again.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 6, 2019)




----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 6, 2019)

Here'tis. TG263 at Solent Sky in Southampton.




0207 Solent Sky SRA.1

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Mar 30, 2020)

From facebook
Test Report.


----------



## swampyankee (Mar 30, 2020)

This is not quite as crazy as was the USN's Sea Dart.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 30, 2020)

Good shots!


----------



## Wurger (Mar 31, 2020)




----------



## swampyankee (Mar 31, 2020)

Crazy as this idea was, I want one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 5, 2020)

johnbr
, last image on the bottom of Post #2: Is it my imagination or is that engines spinner and exhaust cone a bit on the long side?


----------



## Graeme (Apr 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> johnbr
> , last image on the bottom of Post #2: Is it my imagination or is that engines spinner and exhaust cone a bit on the long side?



Looks like it's a cutaway from Look and Learn magazine - never intended to be 'accurate' I would expect.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 6, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Looks like it's a cutaway from Look and Learn magazine - never intended to be 'accurate' I would expect.


Probably true, but, I did do some basic searching (hard as that may be to believe), and from what I've found, the engine is kind of long. I've trimmed off a bit for basic figures

*Engine*..............................*F.2/4 Beryl*.........*J34-WE-36*
Length..............................159"....................112"
Diameter...........................36.7"...................27"
Dry weight........................1750 lb...............1207"
Compressor......................10-Stage axial....11-Stage axial
Combusters......................Can-annular ......Annular
Turbine..............................1-Stage axial......2-Stage axial



swampyankee said:


> This is not quite as crazy as was the USN's Sea Dart.


And yet, the only two real problems with the design was that it wasn't area ruled and the engines weren't powerful enough: The first was fixed with the F-102A; the second I'm not sure, the J73 was powerful enough, but it was somewhat larger in diameter and heavier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 6, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> And yet, the only two real problems with the design was that it wasn't area ruled and the engines weren't powerful enough: The first was fixed with the F-102A; the second I'm not sure, the J73 was powerful enough, but it was somewhat larger in diameter and heavier.



Oh, I don't think there were problems with the design, so much as the basic concept.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 6, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Oh, I don't think there were problems with the design, so much as the basic concept.


I'm curious what was wrong with the concept other than the idea of operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land-bases?


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 7, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious what was wrong with the concept other than the idea of operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land-bases?



Operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land bases was enough. There were some wacky ideas in the 1950s; see XFY-1 and XFV-1 (https://vertipedia-legacy.vtol.org/vstol/wheel.htm); the Sea Dart wasn't the worst.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 7, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Operating supersonic aircraft off water instead of carrier decks or land bases was enough.


That said, there were aircraft prior to that point that operated off of water. The arrangement that had a pair of ski's wasn't too bad.


> There were some wacky ideas in the 1950s; see XFY-1 and XFV-1 (https://vertipedia-legacy.vtol.org/vstol/wheel.htm); the Sea Dart wasn't the worst.


The tail-sitter had some serious flaws. Ironically, transitioning from vertical to level flight wasn't that hard to do -- the problem was reversing the process.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 29, 2020)

ebay

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 29, 2020)




----------

