Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22e9a14bececf6b

Jump to content

Talk:Saunders-Roe SR.177

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cancellation and Lockheed bribery over the Starfighter

[edit]

This article claims that the main reason this aircraft was cancelled was because of bribery. In the early fifties there were several hybrid rocket/turbojet aircraft and all of them were cancelled. This suggests that such hybrids are not cost effective and would have been cancelled regardless of any bribes paid.68.149.247.130 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a pretty clear chain of events linking bribery and the cancellation of the SR.177. It might have been cancelled anyway - the '57 Sandys paper was hard on all UK manned aircraft projects, even without considering the technical aspects of hybrid propulsion. We can't say that it wouldn't have been cancelled without the Starfighter, but certainly we should still include the Lockheed bribery as relevant and well-sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I did not remove anything that was sourced - I removed a biased rambling added by an IP from the Lead. I'm sure we can write something better that is actually based on the sources. - BilCat (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's a programme on YouTube about the SR.177 here: - it was developed because the SR.53 was not capable of carrying AI radar.
The programme also mentions the potential Luftwaffe order and the subsequent Lockheed bribery scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply