Rolls Royce VTOL Projects

Mentioned in Aviation Week June 1967, too, is the transport aircraft and
the strike fighter in the fore ground. Both would have used RB 162 lift engines,
four in the fighter, 32 in the transport. Type of the cruise engins isn't menioned,
just the number : Fighter 1, transport 4.
 

Attachments

  • RR_VSTOL-Konzepte-1.JPG
    RR_VSTOL-Konzepte-1.JPG
    101.3 KB · Views: 1,328
Hi,

Anther Rolls Royce project was for tactical freight aircraft,and it had
a 20 turbofan lift engines of 7.500 1b each and two 15.000 1b turbojets
for propulsion with jet deflection.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1961/1961%20-%201295.pdf
 

Attachments

  • RR tactical freight aircraft.JPG
    RR tactical freight aircraft.JPG
    25 KB · Views: 974
Not a Draken I think , but a Rolls Royce VTOL concept...
Click to expand...

Yes, G L Wilde, head of Rolls-Royce's 'design department' wrote an article (maybe for a conference? - I found it in aero 9/1961) on 'Engines for VTOL aircraft'. The Draken lookalike is described as a strike aircraft (several other configurations were shown, e. g. attacker with swept wing, different tactical transports with 20 or 32 lift engines - a good idea by RR to increase the production ;D ).

Interesting. Usually the "Draken like" plane had twelve lift engines, not only four.
Click to expand...

Tony Buttler wrote in his BSP Jet Bombers it's the Hawker P.1126.
 

Attachments

  • Rolls-Royce (VTOL strike aircraft with delta wing).gif
    Rolls-Royce (VTOL strike aircraft with delta wing).gif
    81.3 KB · Views: 326
Not the same plane I think.
Wingtrailing edge differs..
 
Hi,

it was Rolls-Royce VTOL aircraft,I found it before but I don't
remember the number of the page.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,449.60.html
 

Attachments

  • RR VTO.jpg
    RR VTO.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 277
Scans from RAF Flying Journal
 

Attachments

  • RR strike fighter concept 1962.jpg
    RR strike fighter concept 1962.jpg
    443.7 KB · Views: 446
  • RR strike fighter concept 1962 2v .jpg
    RR strike fighter concept 1962 2v .jpg
    888.2 KB · Views: 442
the delta wing concept looks like the Saab J35 Draken with additional lift engines ...
 
From Air Pictorial 10/1957,


a strange Info about Rolls Royce collaborated with Vickers-Armstrong to designed
a new VTOL aircraft,what was this ?.
 

Attachments

  • VTOL.png
    VTOL.png
    105.1 KB · Views: 116
Hi,

here is a strike or a strike/fighter VTOL aircraft Model,I can't ID it,who can help ?,it
looks like one variant of English Electric P.31.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=bHZ-ngYi4zUC&pg=PA64&dq=Flying+magazine+VTOL&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjfhtmivJDKAhWCyRoKHShOAK04ChDoAQg6MAg#v=onepage&q=Flying%20magazine%20VTOL&f=false
 

Attachments

  • VTOL Strike.png
    VTOL Strike.png
    107.7 KB · Views: 360
Look a bit like a mix of FIAT G-95/3 (the T tail) and G-95/6…
http://hushkit.net/2012/07/27/sixties-superfighters-the-original-jsf-the-italian-vstol-g-95-resistenza/
 
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19611009/34/2
http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19611009/35/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    212.6 KB · Views: 529
  • 2.png
    2.png
    197.2 KB · Views: 538
hesham said:
From Ali Nuove 9/1961.
Click to expand...

Very nice find hesham, what type of lift fans would this plane use if it was to have been put into production? RB-108's?
 
FighterJock said:
Very nice find hesham, what type of lift fans would this plane use if it was to have been put into production? RB-108's?
Click to expand...

Thank you dear FighterJock,

and I think it was RB.162.
 
hesham said:
FighterJock said:
Very nice find hesham, what type of lift fans would this plane use if it was to have been put into production? RB-108's?
Click to expand...

Thank you dear FighterJock,

and I think it was RB.162.
Click to expand...

Are there any pictures or websites available that mention the RB.162. strange to think that in all my years as a military aviation enthusiast I have never heard about the RB.162.
 
FighterJock said:
Are there any pictures or websites available that mention the RB.162. strange to think that in all my years as a military aviation enthusiast I have never heard about the RB.162.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_RB162
Used as lift engine in Dassault Mirage IIIV, VFW VAK 191B, Dornier Do 31.
Used as auxiliary engine for take off and climb in Hawker Siddeley Trident 3B.
 
Antonio said:
Scans from RAF Flying Journal
Click to expand...
I think I've just seen this very model (pics taken earlier today, sorry they're fairly poor - access was rather tricky)

I've just realised I think a model similar to this cargo variant is lurking behind in the corner - top right, (alternate?) wing section infront of fuselage?

1642898912428.png
1642898932445.png
1642898946757.png
1642898956788.png
1642898968497.png
1642898978796.png
 
Last edited:
Justo Miranda said:
vtol3-jpg.40614
Click to expand...

This photo along with other designs was also reproduced, with somewhat better resolution, in William Green; "VTOL Competition - Fillip or Fiasco?", RAF Flying Review, Vol XVII, No. 4, December 1961, pp. 17-19,53.
The photo itself is on Page 19 and captioned:
"Rolls-Royce proposal for cranked delta wing type with four R.B.162 lift engines mounted in a similar fashion to those to be used on Mirage-V"
No other comment on it is made.
Other than that, the article is an interesting potted commentary on NATO specification NBMR3 and its entrants, that would ultimately lead to the VJ-101 prototype.
 
Last edited:
boxkite said:
Not a Draken I think , but a Rolls Royce VTOL concept...
Click to expand...

Yes, G L Wilde, head of Rolls-Royce's 'design department' wrote an article (maybe for a conference? - I found it in aero 9/1961) on 'Engines for VTOL aircraft'. The Draken lookalike is described as a strike aircraft (several other configurations were shown, e. g. attacker with swept wing, different tactical transports with 20 or 32 lift engines - a good idea by RR to increase the production ;D ).

Interesting. Usually the "Draken like" plane had twelve lift engines, not only four.
Click to expand...

Tony Buttler wrote in his BSP Jet Bombers it's the Hawker P.1126.
Click to expand...
Which is the source for the drawing - Wilde or Buttler?
 
What I really want to know is, how much genuine engineering effort did R-R put into all these many aircraft designs, and why go to all the trouble of making so many disparate models when your graphic artists could knock up much bigger and more stunning artwork far more cheaply?
 
hesham said:
I think this was a Rolls Royce VTOL fighter ,Right ?.
Click to expand...

Certainly appears to be their patent. But the twin-boom layout looks more like a study for the B.Ae 1216 supersonic ASTOVL fighter project at B.Ae Kingston. Some variants did have twin engines, though most had a singe engine with three nozzles. The date of 1983 puts it right at the heart of that programme.
But it's interesting to note that the article mentions McDonnell Douglas and not BAe.
 
Hesham #17 Air Pic 10/57 is peddling 9/57 Farnborough Show gossip. The only "Vickers" recent cancellations were non-funding of anything-Scimitar-ish. A year or so later the V-A submision to 9/57's OR (to be TSR.2) had that odd Shorts lifting platform (?P-17A) with a battery of RR lift engines.

Always be sceptical about engine firms' sketches for berths for their schemes. Misinformation to confuse and distract USSR.

Engine firms' culture was that the airframe is the tin to carry the engine, where, alone, novelty begins. New airframes can only be drawn around engines that have reached component test-rig stage: I lead, you follow. RR had the additional problem of less direct teamwork with airframers: futurologists in Bristol, ASM, even DH Engines could talk at High Table and/or the 19th.hole with their airframe colleagues. RR must rely on NGTE/RAE as intermediary. Ridiculous notions of multiple dead weight, often dead lift engines would never have survived the presence of, say, Camm.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom