A more modest ECAT instead of Jaguar?

tomo pauk

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
1 May 2011
Messages
781
Reaction score
589
By 'more modest', I suggest that the ECAT is made around a single afterburning Adour. Main role being the high-performance trainer.
It starts out as a 2-seater. Can be a high-wing A/C like Jaguar, empty weight of ~3.5 tons (for comparison sake, CF-5A was at ~4 tons; Jaguar at 7 tons), single 30 mm cannon. Five hardpoints, initially for the training bombs/rockets, later external weapon load going to perhaps 2.2-2.3 tons.

Several consequences:
- chances for the Hawk and Alpha Jet to materialize get very slim, especially if the 'budget' version of the alt-ECAT is made, without the internal 30mm cannon, without the A/B and with the wing with perhaps a 'kink' for better low-speed abilities
- French will be buying more of the Mirages for the real combat roles
- British might be making more Buccaneers

Any takers?
 
Well it will be a proto-Hawk, rather than an early Alpha Jet. Perhaps with a single RB.153 ?
 
The UK would have done to this variant what France did to AFVG and BAC would have had a stronger case for UKVG.
But McDD would have undercut this with their VG F4 and the RAF would have been a major F4 customer like W Germany.
It would have killed BAC off leaving HSA as the UK's only fast combat jet manufacturer.
Variants of P1127 might then have made more progress.
 
Well it will be a proto-Hawk, rather than an early Alpha Jet. Perhaps with a single RB.153 ?

I went with the Adour since it is/was more known to the general public.

The UK would have done to this variant what France did to AFVG and BAC would have had a stronger case for UKVG.

The alt-ECAT is probably more of it's own type, rather than just a variant :)

Variants of P1127 might then have made more progress.

Is there any worth in an non-VTOL spin-off from the P.1127 line? With 'normal' turbofan, less bulky intakes and wing extensions?
 
Hawkers submission was HS.1173 if I reccal correctly.
This being a rather attractive design around a single RB.153 (RR and MTU) or 'early RB.172 (not Adour). A natural Hunter successor and obvious competitor to the F5.

In the world where BAC was working on AFVG, it's arguable that HSA could have been 'thrown a bone' here in the supersonic trainer.
But once that died BAC needed something to do and HSA had P.1127 work. Ironic of course since in the end HSA would win the Trainer with Hawk.

Now this HS.1173 would obviously be compatible with M.45 (Bristol and SNECMA) or indeed the developments that led to RB.199.

An Ironic twist could emerge here if the HS.1173 could take the Super Etendard's place.
 
By 'more modest', I suggest that the ECAT is made around a single afterburning Adour. Main role being the high-performance trainer.
It starts out as a 2-seater. Can be a high-wing A/C like Jaguar, empty weight of ~3.5 tons (for comparison sake, CF-5A was at ~4 tons; Jaguar at 7 tons), single 30 mm cannon. Five hardpoints, initially for the training bombs/rockets, later external weapon load going to perhaps 2.2-2.3 tons.

Several consequences:
- chances for the Hawk and Alpha Jet to materialize get very slim, especially if the 'budget' version of the alt-ECAT is made, without the internal 30mm cannon, without the A/B and with the wing with perhaps a 'kink' for better low-speed abilities
- French will be buying more of the Mirages for the real combat roles
- British might be making more Buccaneers

Any takers?
I like it, I'll take 250 please.

It's possible it might still have wound up twin engined as Alpha Jet did (probably perceived safety in a trainer) but with lower-thrust engines.
But a proto-AlphaHawk with one Adour or two Larzac-esque jets saves a lot of hassle all round and could have been a real winner. A single-seat version would make a good COIN aircraft and competes with the A-37 etc., maybe even Italy and W. Germany buys it to replace their G.91s?

One potential snag is that it's cheap enough to develop that there is nothing stopping France or Britain deciding to go it alone rather than collaborating.
 
P.1173 was quite a bit bigger with almost the same thrust levels as RB199. I think for a smaller, simpler aircraft built around a single Adour Mk101 then we're looking quite a lot smaller e.g. per this previous thread

I think we're more looking at the likes of a Gnat F.2 or Fiat G.91T. Might still end up looking like a Jaguar, but with a bigger cockpit. Probably no under fuselage stores due to ground clearance.
 
West Germany used the Alpha Jet for light close air support replacing the Fiat G91.
This was a world away from the original German Italian VAK 191.
I have not been able to find a good account of how effective the Luftwaffe Alphas were.
 
The Alpha Jet is very manoeuverable and, if reinforced with some more thrust, could be a powerful attack platform. With gun pods under the belly it could kill Soviet Mil and Kamov attack choppers by the dozens. And it has two pair of eyes to check for targets - and AAA. With some Magic-2 or AIM-9L underwings it could defend itself (think SHAR in the Falklands) and also chase and kills Su-25s (an Alpha Jet is probably faster than a Frogfoot, it looks sleeker and has swept wings).
 
Tie a Gnat to a table and force-feed it anabolic steroids.

There was a suggestion for a thin-wing Gnat, with a more powerful engine than it was historically the case. From Wikipedia:
Fo.142 Gnat / Gnat F.2
This was to be an improved F.1 using a wing with a 6% thickness-to-chord ratio and powered by a Bristol Orpheus with simplified reheat (BOr.12SR), developing 8000 lbF (35.6 kN) thrust.[42] A prototype wing was built but not mated to a fuselage or engine. It was anticipated that this would be capable of M 1.5 and have a "marked increase in rate of climb"
[43]
 
There was a suggestion for a thin-wing Gnat, with a more powerful engine than it was historically the case.
Sounds much like the Etendard VI, which was powered by the same Orpheus engine (BOr.12SR). Apparently Dassault had a 2-seater trainer option in the cards (on paper).

The issue with the Orpheus simplified reheat though was that it was only available on take off and would not help with combat performance at altitude... so a reheated Adour would probably be better (1972 Adour Mk 102: 5,100lb dry / 7,300lb reheat).
 

Attachments

  • Etendard VI A March 1958 200px =1m.png
    Etendard VI A March 1958 200px =1m.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 16
  • Etendard VI A Feb 1958 characteristics.png
    Etendard VI A Feb 1958 characteristics.png
    961.7 KB · Views: 16
The Adour these aircraft would be using would be the lower thrust Mk101, which also only had on/off reheat
That is not what “Simplified Reheat” is.

Bristol Simplified Reheat (BSR) aka “wee heat” was described as arudimentary form of afterburning in which fuel is injected from behind the engine tailcone, used in conjunction with a fixed-area propelling nozzle”, “without the complications of a full reheat system e.g. bigger jet pipe diameters, mechanically variable nozzle etc”.

As a result it provided much less thrust boost than a real afterburner (+15% only) and was optimized for take off / sea level conditions. It wouldn’t provide much benefit at high altitude / transonic conditions.
 
I think we're talking about different things. The initial Adour engine didn't have throttleable reheat i.e. just on/off (and was lower thrust than 102/104). This wasn't uncommon with early reheated engines as the designers learnt how to manage combustion stability issues.
 
My understanding is that the improved reheats were created by the french for the Jaguar M, who badly needed them to land on Clemenceau class carriers (it was badly underpowered and the wing was too small, which ultimately doomed it). Then the reheats were passed to the AdA for its own Jaguars (it probably helped in Africa and Iraq later).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom