Advanced Harrier Projects

stever_sl said:
HIDEN rings a bell. Rolls Royce did the engine work on Harrier 21 and I've seen at least one of the 2 variants included in their product history lists. RB-578 was the version using the Pegasus core for our hoped-for prototype that never happened, and RB-571 was the same layout but with the more powerful Eurofighter engine core. I can't say much about the aircraft itself because of that whole ITAR thing but since 2/3 of the work was done by Brits, you might touch base with RR or BAE and see if they've retained anything in their files that they could share. If you're able to track down RB-578 or -571 you'll see a family resemblance with what MDC's ASTOVL Model 4629 had, with some significant differences of course. NASA Contractor Report 195358 "STOVL Control Integration Program" has no restrictive distribution markings and so if you find RB-578/571 material elsewhere you'll be able to see pretty clearly what MDC/BAe/RR thinking was in the early 1990s. Here's one illustration of Model 4629 from the NASA report:

View attachment 736144
Click to expand...
Hrm. You lose a lot of thrust turning the cold nozzles 180deg like that, but it does get the engine moved aft and off the CG.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hrm. You lose a lot of thrust turning the cold nozzles 180deg like that, but it does get the engine moved aft and off the CG.
Click to expand...
Yep, V/STOL is all about weighing up the pros and cons of each solution. Would moving the engine and centre of gravity aft reduce the amount of thrust required from the front nozzles?
 
SteveO said:
Yep, V/STOL is all about weighing up the pros and cons of each solution. Would moving the engine and centre of gravity aft reduce the amount of thrust required from the front nozzles?
Click to expand...
Not really, but it would give you more space on or around the CG for other things. Like a weapons bay.
 
SteveO said:
More Harrier 21 speculating - like or laugh :)
Click to expand...
Right in some places, not so right in others. Somebody really needs to talk to RR and BAe. I suppose the people who actually did the work are long gone (or worse) but the fact that RR still shows RB.578 and RB.571 in their historic lists might indicate that they have other things in their archives. Peter Calder, Peter Moore, Suresh Gupta, Ben Ward, Adam Strachan-Stephens, and Barry New were the RR people on Harrier 21 whose cards I got at the time. Wish I'd gotten some from the BAe folks but our designers coordinated with them separately and I don't recall ever meeting with any of them myself.
 
TsrJoe said:
AVPRO speculation or
Click to expand...
Very close! The design groups at MDC and BAe worked independently on an airframe to contain the RB.578/571 engine, meeting a set of fixed requirements for speed, range, duration etc. The British design featured a favorite of theirs, a single vertical tail with fold-over section to fit below decks in the L-ships and Harrier Carriers, while the American design went with the familiar twin tail that's been on just about everything in the past 50+ years. One had round inlets, the other had rectangular ones, and so on with the details. Our designers and theirs merged the best features of each one and I honestly don't remember which choices went into the final configuration. I don't know exactly what that artwork represents but it's similar to what was in the mix at the time.
 
SteveO said:
stever_sl, can you let us know if the Harrier 21 proposals had the standard tandem + outriggers or a new tricycle undercarriage?

No worries if not, it’s just great to know there is another Harrier development out there to be revealed :)
Click to expand...
If I tell you that, it starts to reveal things about the locations of certain "things" and I fear the wrath of ITAR if I go any further! :)
 
I've opened a case with DDTC to get a ruling on whether the Harrier 21 material really qualifies for protection under ITAR, since 1/2 of the airframe design work and 100% of the propulsion design was done in the UK, and also since we deliberately avoided incorporating any advanced technologies or materials beyond what was already in use in 1990 because we knew from long experience that the Marines, our primary customer, couldn't afford and didn't really need that level of technology. I'll be interested to see what their ruling is, and if it's favorable, I'll share what I have on Harrier 21.
 
Did you come across any mention of work done by prior team --The 'Supersonic Harrier'-- including a Rob Rowe ??

I met him serendipitously, as his wife bred/judged Siamese cats. This was ~1990.
Beyond utterly deprecating 'Plenum Chamber Burning', he still felt sufficiently bound by NDA., OSA etc etc to not even hint at the very elegant solution his team belatedly found. Which, sadly, proved too late to prevent political cancellation of project...
 
stever_sl said:
I've opened a case with DDTC to get a ruling on whether the Harrier 21 material really qualifies for protection under ITAR, since 1/2 of the airframe design work and 100% of the propulsion design was done in the UK, and also since we deliberately avoided incorporating any advanced technologies or materials beyond what was already in use in 1990 because we knew from long experience that the Marines, our primary customer, couldn't afford and didn't really need that level of technology. I'll be interested to see what their ruling is, and if it's favorable, I'll share what I have on Harrier 21.
Click to expand...
Even if only 1% of the design work was US based it would still arguably fall under ITAR
 
GTX said:
Even if only 1% of the design work was US based it would still arguably fall under ITAR
Click to expand...
That's why I asked for a formal review. Typically companies do this on their own, and nobody questions the marking once it's on. If the answer for Harrier 21 comes back from DDTC that ITAR is appropriate, then we'll know for sure that the info package can't be shared. But if it goes the other way, then the door is open at last, without worrying about whether it might cause damage to US defense posture in any way.
 
Nik said:
Did you come across any mention of work done by prior team --The 'Supersonic Harrier'-- including a Rob Rowe ??

I met him serendipitously, as his wife bred/judged Siamese cats. This was ~1990.
Beyond utterly deprecating 'Plenum Chamber Burning', he still felt sufficiently bound by NDA., OSA etc etc to not even hint at the very elegant solution his team belatedly found. Which, sadly, proved too late to prevent political cancellation of project...
Click to expand...
The name doesn't ring a bell for our Harrier 21 team, but I know BAe and MDC were both working on other potential advanced STOVL solutions. Was he with BAe or RR? I know the names of several of the RR people but I never had direct contact with BAe myself.
 
I'm sorry, it's been a long, lonnng time.
All I remember is Rob Rowe was part of a small 'Tiger Team' brought in to solve the PCB problems, contrive supersonic use.

He said they'd solved it without that deprecated, 'dead end' PCB, but declined to say further.
After he invoked NDA/OSA, I could not enquire further, but he was evidently still very bitter their 'elegant' solution was abandoned.

Sadly, within a year or two of the project's cancellation, his colleagues' health failed. leaving him the last of them.

A possible tracing link was that, mid-90s, both very clever sons were doing Engineering at Uni.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom