Advanced Harrier Projects

[Archibald]

I always felt P.1216 was the logical end of P.1154 developments.
PCB worked but would be brutal on the rear fuselage: all that heat and noise and vibrations. Instead of a rear fuselage sandwiched between two PCBs, the P.1216 design moved the rear fuselage out of harm way (twin booms) and cut the PCB from two to one : in the middle.
Two clever ideas, really.
...
A pity the P.1216 couldn't be rescued by ASTOVL, the timing was right: post Falklands SHAR triumph, 1983 and beyond. But that game was rigged by Lockheed and DARPA. As explained up thread...

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/advanced-harrier-projects.184/post-750558

 

[Scott Kenny]

And the stealth properties? Blend it all to almost flying wing?

Probably not. The forward nozzles would be in the way of significant blending there. At best, it'd probably be as blended as the XP-67 Moonbat.

(aside) Super Hornet EWP looks like it's flying with suitcases and is in a hurry.

LOL. Sure does!

 

[Martes]

Probably not. The forward nozzles would be in the way of significant blending there. At best, it'd probably be as blended as the XP-67 Moonbat.

It's the split tail that worries me and the effect of the whole shape on radar signature.

 

[Archibald]

Also the huge, gapping, F-16 like intake. Not sure it could be made stealth ? perhaps turned DSI ?

 

[Martes]

Also the huge, gapping, F-16 like intake.

Boeing JSF style?

 

[Archibald]

Good point !

 

[FighterJock]

Always wondered where Boeing got their idea for the JSF design from. Now I know.

 

[DesScorp]

They weren't shy about how they went after new business either

They never were:

Lockheed bribery scandals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[stever_sl]

I actually found something along these lines. Mind - it's from a computer game and absolutely fictional, but - it shows how to combine the 4-exhaust layout with internal weapons bay. (sorry for the nuclear blast in the background, that's the only coherent bottom view I could find)

View attachment 758961

View attachment 758959

You just need two engines, and put the bay between them.

The problem always was that the USMC was adamant about never buying a STOVL fighter/attack airplane that had to have more than one working engine to hover and land safely. Now, of course, they have F-35B, whose lift fan is a lot more complex than people seem to realize. I would love to see the reliability and safety figures on that, as opposed to those for an outright 2-engine design, remembering that it's not just the lift fan itself but the driveshaft and clutch and gearbox whose failure would also lead to catastrophe just as surely as failures in the actual engine.

 

[stever_sl]

Always wondered where Boeing got their idea for the JSF design from. Now I know.

If you mean X-32, several people in Seattle (including Dennis Muilenburg, future CEO of Boeing) patented the configuration and some of us speculated that this patent was the reason they held on to the ugly and unworkable delta-with-backward-inlet layout for so long. That might not be fair, but being able to say that "I thought up that airplane" is a powerful motivator. (We ran into the same kind of thing on another failed program that had a foundational patent with fatal flaws, but that's a whole other story.)

 

[stever_sl]

Probably not. The forward nozzles would be in the way of significant blending there. At best, it'd probably be as blended as the XP-67 Moonbat.

Probably not. The forward nozzles would be in the way of significant blending there. At best, it'd probably be as blended as the XP-67 Moonbat.


LOL. Sure does!

And if you want to know all about XP-67, you can read the book that my wife and I wrote on it! Only I'd suggest the e-reader edition rather than a paper copy. On the paper copy the photos and drawings and blueprints are way smaller than we thought they'd be, due to how the publisher arranged the material to fit the format of this general series (which has now been discontinued, by the way.) With the digital edition, though, you can open each illustration and zoom in to get much better detail. Oh, and by the way, we don't get a penny in royalties, it was strictly a work for hire.

McDonnell XP-67 "Moonbat"

Packed with never-before-seen photos, plans and meticulous new digital artwork, this is the first history of the USAAF's futuristic World War II prototype inter…

www.ospreypublishing.com

 

[Martes]

patented the configuration and some of us speculated that this patent was the reason they held on to the ugly and unworkable delta-with-backward-inlet layout for so long.

Funny, I always liked this configuration of early X-32. No idea how it flew, but it looks cute

What's that marked by 53 there? Looks like rotating exhaust.

 

[martinbayer]

Funny, I always liked this configuration of early X-32. No idea how it flew, but it looks cute

I still fondly recall that the X-32 was nicknamed 'Monica' not long after the Clinton Oval Office turbulent flow blue dress incident...

 

[aim9xray]

as in The "Sailor Inhaler"?

 

[martinbayer]

as in The "Sailor Inhaler"?

I don't think either of them was (ex) Navy, and as for inhaling, apart from pure ambient air, any other matter is pretty much never a good idea...

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think either of them was (ex) Navy, and as for inhaling, apart from pure ambient air, any other matter is pretty much never a good idea...

Yes, but there are always accidents of some poor Sailor standing up too close to the inlets and getting taken for a ride.

If the sailor is lucky they drop a flashlight or their helmet comes loose and takes out the engine before they get to the fan. But now that I think about it, the Radar Blocker grid in the X-32's mouth would hopefully stop the sailor from going into the fan.

 

[martinbayer]

Yes, but there are always accidents of some poor Sailor standing up too close to the inlets and getting taken for a ride.

If the sailor is lucky they drop a flashlight or their helmet comes loose and takes out the engine before they get to the fan. But now that I think about it, the Radar Blocker grid in the X-32's mouth would hopefully stop the sailor from going into the fan.

I *honestly* did not have that aspect in mind, but well, then let's consider grids in front of engine air intakes for *every* design (civilian, commercial, military, experimental, whatever) going forward due to FOD risk. I have no skin in this game, so I'm genuinely curious where this discussion might go, but then again, I realize this is definitely off topic, so please, moderators, deal with the mess I just made as you see fit.

 

[Archibald]

I don't think either of them was (ex) Navy, and as for inhaling, apart from pure ambient air, any other matter is pretty much never a good idea...

"But ... but... what I'm gonna do in a submarine, with sea men everywhere ?" - The Village People

 

[aim9xray]

as in The "Sailor Inhaler"?

I meant the X-32B. What were you all thinking of?

 

[stever_sl]

Funny, I always liked this configuration of early X-32. No idea how it flew, but it looks cute

What's that marked by 53 there? Looks like rotating exhaust.

Yes, 53 is the forward ("cold" flow) vectorable nozzle on each side of the fuselage. And it apparently flew very well despite its appearance, according to the test pilots. I never saw the Government's official comparison though.

 

[Martes]

I always felt P.1216 was the logical end of P.1154 developments.

There was this image around the thread (I can't find the exact post, but I certainly downloaded it from somewhere around here):

​

That shows (probably) the most "modern" configuration of the aircraft with this engine. I suppose the weapon bays are located a bit after the secondary nozzles and open (mostly) sideways. Could it work at all? Would they have to be extended? Especially with what you say about PCB temperatures? Is it landing gear in those tail consoles? Or fuel? And what is known about this image, was it just a Rolls Royce illustration, or one of existing concepts?

 

[Scott Kenny]

There was this image around the thread (I can't find the exact post, but I certainly downloaded it from somewhere around here):

View attachment 759313
​

That shows (probably) the most "modern" configuration of the aircraft with this engine. I suppose the weapon bays are located a bit after the secondary nozzles and open (mostly) sideways. Could it work at all? Would they have to be extended? Especially with what you say about PCB temperatures? Is it landing gear in those tail consoles? Or fuel? And what is known about this image, was it just a Rolls Royce illustration, or one of existing concepts?

No, the weapon bays would need to be out of the PCB flow. It might work if the bays were between the canards and the main.

 

[Martes]

It might work if the bays were between the canards and the main.

That's what I meant - the secondary nozzles being the forward ones.

Bay in black, gear in red, something like that?

​

 

[TsrJoe]

SPECULATIVE Rolls Royce PCB. design ?
... https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1YgZdZFzYo/

 

[Archibald]

Wait, is that a variant or an evolution of P.1216 ?

 

[Mike Pryce]

Wait, is that a variant or an evolution of P.1216 ?

It is not related at all. Just PR artwork to show three nozzles by Rolls, with pods in just the right place to be burned off, the very thing the P1216 was to avoid. It's a shame Frank Mason put it in his Hawker Putnam. Complete mistake.

 

[Archibald]

Ok thanks. I see the point. After the three nozzles breakthrough, there were good reasons why the rear fuselage was split into twin booms, away from the PCB nozzle in the middle.