Atlas FCA-1 Carver fighter project

[galgot]

Btw, this is the book been mentioned earlier in this thread :



Was auctioned here :

Sold Price: Badenhorst, Nicholas P. & Victor, Pierre L. THOSE WHO HAD THE POWER: SOUTH AFRICA: AN UNOFFICIAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS HISTORY Johannesburg: A. V. A. Systems (Pty) Ltd, 2006. First edition. Col. illustrations. The story of South Africa's develo

View sold price and similar items: Badenhorst, Nicholas P. & Victor, Pierre L. THOSE WHO HAD THE POWER: SOUTH AFRICA: AN UNOFFICIAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS HISTORY Johannesburg: A. V. A. Systems (Pty) Ltd, 2006. First edition. Col. illustrations. The story of South Africa's development as a Nuclear...

www.invaluable.com

 

[kaiserbill]

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

Very interesting!
I'm going to paste this over to the Carver thread and continue there?

I"be copied this over from the "Let the Lavi live" thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/let-the-lavi-live.36314/

Black Mamba, these drawings were the single engined Carver then?
I assume you took note of the dimensions?
There are some dimensions earlier on in this thread...length, span, wing area, wing sweep...
Length 16.06m
Span 9.2m.
Wing area 38m2 (not including LERX?)
Wing sweep angle 58 degrees
Are these accurate? Were weights listed?

EDIT: Carver wing sweep angle was apparently 55 degrees from the info earlier.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I was stunned when I saw them! They looked like engineering layout drawings. So positions of certain equipment etc through the airframe. Not too detailed but detailed enough in certain ways. They also listed dimentions, wing NACA profiles etc. They quite clearly depicted an Atar being fitted but I guess you could squeeze an M53 in too.
They did show that the single drawings on the web at least are quite accurate! I'm perhaps bigging them up but my mouth dropped when I was shown them. They looked to have been part of a larger set of a final proposal layout or so? It looked like this person only had three pages of the set but it was tons more than what is readibly available!

Very interesting!
I'm going to paste this over to the Carver thread and continue there?

I"be copied this over from the "Let the Lavi live" thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/let-the-lavi-live.36314/

Black Mamba, these drawings were the single engined Carver then?
I assume you took note of the dimensions?
There are some dimensions earlier on in this thread...length, span, wing area, wing sweep...
Length 16.06m
Span 9.2m.
Wing area 38m2 (not including LERX?)
Wing sweep angle 58 degrees
Are these accurate? Were weights listed?

It was the single version yes but my idiot self was so stunned I forgot to take notes and photos - even for personal use only - was declined so I have no reference for myself. From what I recall the dimentions you list seem accurate but I can't for the life of me recall weights. As I said, I was so stunned that "think clearly and take notes" didn't come to mind like it usually does. I will try to find more!

 

[kaiserbill]

A pity... but understandable.
Please do find out more.
Apart from the 2 models (single and recently the twin engine) and the few snippets posted in the public domain, hard info is scarce.
You have an opportunity to hugely increase the amount of info known in a single stroke.

The single bit of inside info (from that book excerpt which also shows the photo of part of the design team) on Page 1, Post 33 on this thread clearly states the single engined versions operational requirements placed it in the F-16 class wrt technology and performance, so I guess in the the F-16/Mirage 2000 physical size range too.

 

[kaiserbill]

I made a mistake quoting the earlier post info on the Carver wing sweep angle. I have corrected it above.

I cannot remember where I got those figures exactly, but I think it was from the SAAF forum.
They are to be treated with caution unless verified somewhat by that drawing Black Mamba mentioned.

Something I noticed:

By comparison, the Mirage III had a leading edge wing sweep angle of 60 degrees.
Mirage 2000 of 58 degrees.

If Carver has a sweep angle of 55 degrees as mentioned, plus a wingspan marginally greater than the Mirage 2000 (9.2m Vs 9.12m), then it cannot have a wing area of 38m2.

The Mirage 2000 has a wing area of 41m2, and this is not even considering the Carvers LERX. The geometry seems to indicate a figure higher than 38.
Wing trailing edge sweep difference, if any, would be negligible I think on this figure.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Some artwork from Bladerunner based on the single seater model that was displayed as well as the linedrawing from the article posterd by Deino above.

These are the line drawings I was referring too @kaiserbill. The ones I was shown proved these to be very accurate in terms of the general layout of the single aircraft.

 

[kaiserbill]

Sorry Black Mamba, I am confused.
Are you saying those drawings by Blade runner are accurate in general terms to the engineering type drawings that you were shown, with systems placement and dimensions?

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Sorry Black Mamba, I am confused.
Are you saying those drawings by Blade runner are accurate in general terms to the engineering type drawings that you were shown, with systems placement and dimensions?

Yes. Those line drawings, in general shape at least, I immediately recognised when shown the engineering type drawings. They are thus quite good for a general shape impression at least. Including the F-16 style canopy I once thought was just a bit of artistic licence from someone. Wonder if they would have stuck to it if the single made production?

I believe they where based on a scaled up three view published in Guardians of the Nation on Carver.

 

[kaiserbill]

Yes.
It looks like Bladerunner took the basic 3-view drawing of the Carver as illustrated in Cheetah: Guardians of the Nation, and redrew and colourised them.
It would be interesting where the author got that from. They had an interview excerpt from a member of the programme, but I wonder if that is a general 3-view based on the model displayed in Chile commissioned for the book, rather than an official drawing.
It's rather basic, and shows general layout.

On artwork, Pierre Victor in Those who had the Power seems to have got the gist of the twin engined Carver mostly right, with a few exceptions.
He obviously saw models.
Interesting that he shows variants with single and twin vertical stabilisers.
I think there are more models out there, as it has been stated there were a variety of configurations studied.

On a sad note, I have yet to find the pics I had of a large model which looks like an even earlier Carver configuration than the now famous single engined variant.
This looked like a crossover between the now known single engined Carver, and a type that seems to have origins in a highly developed Cheetah C type airframe.
Raised cockpit, square side intakes, wing lifted off the bottom of the fuselage, but not quite mid-fuselage, much larger canards, and a cranked delta wing.
I have asked Graugrun if he still has it, but it appears we are both out of luck right now.
I'll keep looking, but I have moved twice since then, and had a laptop crash too.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Yes.
It looks like Bladerunner took the basic 3-view drawing of the Carver as illustrated in Cheetah: Guardians of the Nation, and redrew and colourised them.
It would be interesting where the author got that from. They had an interview excerpt from a member of the programme, but I wonder if that is a general 3-view based on the model displayed in Chile commissioned for the book, rather than an official drawing.
It's rather basic, and shows general layout.

On artwork, Pierre Victor in Those who had the Power seems to have got the gist of the twin engined Carver mostly right, with a few exceptions.
He obviously saw models.
Interesting that he shows variants with single and twin vertical stabilisers.
I think there are more models out there, as it has been stated there were a variety of configurations studied.
I have yet to find the pics I had of a large model which looks like an even earlier Carver configuration than the now famous single engined variant.
This looked like a crossover between the now known single engined Carver, and a type that seems to have origins in a highly developed Cheetah C type airframe.
Raised cockpit, square side intakes, wing lifted off the bottom of the fuselage, but not quite mid-fuselage, much larger canards, and a cranked delta wing.
I have asked Graugrun if he still has it, but it appears we are both out of luck right now.

If it was comissioned for the book based off the model I'm sure one of higher quality would have been inserted. There are still some shape differences in the LERX etc between the two so I feel like it must be some sort of official drawing the author somehow obtained.

I agree. There are certainly more models out there. CSIR apparently has one of the single on display at the windtunnel. My father once got a tour there from a friend years ago. He wanted to take a picture but wasn't sure if it was Carver! Too many things like this are really hiding in plain sight and all we need is individuals to just share a picture of something on open display...

I actually showed a photo of my sketch to an now retired airforce engineer who was involved with Carver hoping to spark a converstation or gleam something about the accuracy I've achieved. He took a good look, zoomed in a bit and scrolled around before promptly stating that if I had been a SAAF engineer they could arrange for me to see the actual engineering stuff. I was a bit annoyed obviously at not really learning anything from a discussion, but I still felt like I was onto something at least based on his lack of comment... Clutching at straws certainly but it makes me feel better! I will certainly tackle the single version at one point too.

 

[kaiserbill]

Just following up on another thread, I must say that I wait in anticipation for Thorns further contribution on the Carver.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I concur with Kaiserbill. @Thorn your insights here will be of great value.
The subject of Carver came up again recently in a Whatsapp chain of mine and it is almost astounding how many versions of the story there are. Between my own research and others it really seems like just about every contemorary engine was a possibility. The Phantom's Spey was touted as in strong contender from a senior official in the RR service section at Atlas die to a strong relationship with them through the Buccaneer fleet. The Russian SMR-95 was the engine of choice years later (Carver engineers where part of that design team) but by then the project was all but dead anyway.

The second larger twin engine Carver remains a mystery too as only rough models have surfaced. There are drawings on this thread from years back of what I call 'Carver 1' with a single engine which are very accurate compared to engineering drawings I have seen from someone unwilling to make them public - powered by an Atar.

Maybe Thorn can say a bit about what they uncovered over the years? Seeing as none of us posting here have any actual proof of the statements we make but only comments from engineers/officials in the know at the time it would be great to hear confirming versions or new versions that are not "public"...

 

[Thorn]

I concur with Kaiserbill. @Thorn your insights here will be of great value.
The subject of Carver came up again recently in a Whatsapp chain of mine and it is almost astounding how many versions of the story there are. Between my own research and others it really seems like just about every contemorary engine was a possibility. The Phantom's Spey was touted as in strong contender from a senior official in the RR service section at Atlas die to a strong relationship with them through the Buccaneer fleet. The Russian SMR-95 was the engine of choice years later (Carver engineers where part of that design team) but by then the project was all but dead anyway.

The second larger twin engine Carver remains a mystery too as only rough models have surfaced. There are drawings on this thread from years back of what I call 'Carver 1' with a single engine which are very accurate compared to engineering drawings I have seen from someone unwilling to make them public - powered by an Atar.

Maybe Thorn can say a bit about what they uncovered over the years? Seeing as none of us posting here have any actual proof of the statements we make but only comments from engineers/officials in the know at the time it would be great to hear confirming versions or new versions that are not "public"...

Hi Black Mamba.

The posts on this thread show the depth of local and international contributers of all walks of life, professionals, those with good connections and of course the enthusiasts. In selecting (insisting) on as twin-engine Carver, Gen van Loggerenberg may have had in mind the vintage F-4 Phantom, two seat F-15 Eagle and the twin seat SU Flanker. These A/C were all capable of carrying out 'swing' missions. Is 'swing' still in use regarding such a/c?

Regarding the engines. It seems that the 'souped up' Atar K9-50 turbojet had the inside track. A pilot was asked at an airshow what thrust the upgraded Atar delivered in comparison with the garden variey Atar, and his answer also was ~10%. This was og course faithfully telayed to me. Mention of the Spey however is a first time for me. By the time the SMR-95 turbofan came round Carver was dead already, but the Cheetah program was still breathing.

I have a feeling that the Russians were looking for a business deal to re-engine the Cheetah fleet with their SMR-95.

Nearly forgot if it has not already been posted on a forum: Some nice info on the ACW at https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/06/weekend-wings-39-south-africas-franken.html

Just a note served on the side: I see that the Iranians have also developed such a wing but it does not have fixed drooping leading edges as does the SA one.

Regards

 

[Archibald]

10% of 6000 kg (Atar 9C) would be 6600 kgp thrust.

10% of 6500 kg (Atar 9K) would be just above 7000 kg thrust.

10% of 7200 kg (Atar 9K50) would be close from 8000 kg thrust.

In this case the closest analogy would be the Mirage IVA and the earlier interceptor variants, the IVC.

 

[zen]

Spey would be a problematic solution. The variant used in the F4K was notably difficult from subsonic versions used by civil airliners and the Buccaneer.
That said China was being licensed that version of the Spey, so a possible 'back door' may have opened up. South African engineers might assist Chinese efforts in building them in return for engines and spares.

On a unrelated note I have to say the Carver does look very appealing externally.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Spey would be a problematic solution. The variant used in the F4K was notably difficult from subsonic versions used by civil airliners and the Buccaneer.
That said China was being licensed that version of the Spey, so a possible 'back door' may have opened up. South African engineers might assist Chinese efforts in building them in return for engines and spares.

On a unrelated note I have to say the Carver does look very appealing externally.

Supposedly it would have been direct from RR themselves, or so was claimed by a senior official from the RR service section at Atlas. While I have no doubt the Spey was looked at it looks very unlikely seeing as there was no way the UK could just ship engines to South Africa. The Buccaneer Spey's received support after sanctions purely because they chose to uphold the original contract (no doubt charging them steeply too). China being on the side of the forces South Africa was fighting against makes that door quite unlikely but seeing as the Russian engine project started in 1989/1990 already with them still very much the foe stranger things could have happened. I still however think this was unlikely. Carver was always hampered by the lack of a suitable engine and the Spey was far superior to the Atar so if it was realistically obtainable I'm sure this rumor would have been more widely circulated or some would actually have been obtained.

I still maintain based off talks with engineers on the program the Atar, or a somewhat upgraded version thereof was the only realistic engine available. SA could service the engine quite happily and thanks to a multitude of other Mirage operators out there plenty of back doors existed for deals to be struck to obtain them. Morocco (Mirage F1 user) for example did help based off testimony I heard. Snecma no doubt were also willing to help provided the price is right and the engines are sent via some back doors.

 

[zen]

Another possibility is that earlier Kfir started with a possibility of Spey, so an Israeli path might have existed. But this didn't come about, so they used J79.
Actually that might explain some of this, that back when Israel thought it could get Speys, it was willing to pass some on to South Africa. When that door closed, it would leave a trace....

Alternatively could there have been a Romanian connection?

Seems odd RR thought they could export Spey 202s or 205s considering the sanctions regime. Did they think they could sneek it through as Buccaneer engines?

 

[kaiserbill]

It is interesting to note that the IAI Nammer was originally to be offered with engine choices ranging from the SNECMA M53 and PW1120.
There were attempts to get the M53, and I often wondered whether a path through Israel was envisaged.

The Carver programme would have gone ahead regardless, and the modernised, more powerful ATAR 9K50 would have been used initially as an interim engine.
But I suspect that, if acquiring externally was thwarted, an indigenous modern engine would have been looked at eventually.
I am aware of how expensive that would have been, but if that was the only choice, then it would have been pursued out of necessity.
A lot of the large sums of money spent on Carver had to do with putting supporting technological infrastructure in place. The modern and extensive wind tunnel facilities, and design infrastructure are illustrative.
Money was spent on the beginnings and underpinnings of a jet engine industry, and I expect if things hadn't changed, this would have been the route taken, with judicious use of friends and external recruitment.

Apart from putting the sophisticated supporting design infrastructure in place, the ballistic missile, and nuclear programmes in particular, and Rooivalk programme partially, shows that the decision makers at the time would not have shied away from that.

As stated on other threads, there was always a high sophisticated, and lower sophisticated parallel stream to armament development to meet a requirement, with external acquisition an additional element.

 

[kaiserbill]

Another possibility is that earlier Kfir started with a possibility of Spey, so an Israeli path might have existed. But this didn't come about, so they used J79.
Actually that might explain some of this, that back when Israel thought it could get Speys, it was willing to pass some on to South Africa. When that door closed, it would leave a trace....

Alternatively could there have been a Romanian connection?

Seems odd RR thought they could export Spey 202s or 205s considering the sanctions regime. Did they think they could sneek it through as Buccaneer engines?

Romania would definitely have come into the mix, had this route been selected.
They were quite willing to break the embargo as long as it was under the counter, as proven with the Oryx programme.
And they weren't the only country.

But I personally suspect the Spey was not a forerunner in the project.

 

[Thorn]

10% of 6000 kg (Atar 9C) would be 6600 kgp thrust.

10% of 6500 kg (Atar 9K) would be just above 7000 kg thrust.

10% of 7200 kg (Atar 9K50) would be close from 8000 kg thrust.

In this case the closest analogy would be the Mirage IVA and the earlier interceptor variants, the IVC.

Hi Archibald.

After I retired to bed last night I though about your post again.

I would like to add my 20c to your post.

Regards

Thorn

 

[Archibald]

Be my guest !

 

[zen]

Agreed Spey is not really a runner here, just it piques my curiosity how such a rumour came about.

Anyway, building a modern engine able to fit into the space of an Atar 9K50 could open up prospects of re-engining a lot of Mirage IIIs and 5s. Might be decent business case there.

 

[kaiserbill]

I suspect the Spey was (briefly?) considered due to it being the most modern turbofan in the SAAF combat fleet inventory. So an existing knowledge was there.
Add in the fact that Romania used it, and were looking at one time on using it on an indigenous combat jet of their own, and purchased a licence in 1980 for Turbomecanica to licence produce a Spey variant. They ended up making only Spey components though.

But, as said, I don't personally believe the Spey, as it existed, was a frontrunner for Carver, for various reasons, including technological. I'm personally not sure the Spey was considered powerful enough in its vanilla form. It might have been of interest from a technical or developmental point of view.

Edit: From a thrust point of view, I suspect the M88 was also not really suitable either. I think the M53 or PW1120 could be viewed as more suitable candidates, especially considering the hot and high angle.
Naturally, I am talking about the original single engined model. I think the Spey and M88 would certainly have been considered, and been of great interest for the twin engined design.

 

[zen]

Well the period is one where the Spey was updated to mk205 and this utilised a lot of modern technology to achieve the option of either extending the engine's life and TBO, and the alternative of increasing thrust to something like 25,000lb in reheat with a future possibility of even greater thrust.
This all to extend F4K and F4M.
RR would certainly have been pushing to allow sale and licencing.
Romania was one, China another. So qualms about sale to repressive regimes wasn't that big an impediment.....at least until Tiannamen Square.

But the Israeli connection suggests the PW1120 is more likely. But how that sneeks past the US's control is an open question.

 

[kaiserbill]

I am aware of the developed Spey..that would have been much better, especially for the single engine.
The PW1120 would have been even more ideal, size and thrustwise, and was to be licence produced at Bet Shemesh, to be used in the Lavi and the Super Phantom. A high parts-commonality with the F-100 engine. So, plenty of engines and parts there...
But this came grinding to a halt with the cancellation of the Lavi.

I doubt whole engines could be diverted, but components and technology from that would have been very worthwhile to any indigenous effort. A modern, low bypass (0.36:1) turbofan ideally suited to a combat jet, and in compact form.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Zen, I may have played a part in said rumour...

The version I heard was from a writer who interviewed the late J. Kriel for a book. I haven't read about Spey on this forum. He was a senior service manager at Atlas for RR's engines. Their talk actually centered around Buccaneers, but he mentioned the Phantom's Spey was in the front seat for Carver.

Like mentioned previously - I can see the appeal of the Spey due to reasons listed by Graugrun. While not very modern by the 80's, it was certainly superior to the Atar's available. I'm also pretty sure there existed small design teams for about every possible engine that could be aquired just incase it was actually possible to aquire them. But the Spey rumour isn't well known with only one or two possible sources hence I don't think they put as serious effort into it as with others.

 

[Thorn]

Be my guest !

Hi Archibald

As a point of departure I will focus on the Atar 9K50 which you posisted as 10% of the 7200 kg (Atar 9K50) that would be close to 8000 kg thrust.

Starting with the basic ATAR 9K50 ~ 49.03 kN (11,020 lbf) thrust dry, 70.6 kN with A/B, I recall that the SA's purchared the rights to reproduce the F-1. I therefor advance the hypothesis that this included the 9K50 as well. Therefore complete TOT.

So getting back to thr 10% increase I sought to get a comparable example.

The Israelis upped their licence built J79 to 18,750 lbf (83.4 kN) afterburning. This translated into a dry thrust 49.4 kN (11,100 lbs), and 83.4 kN (18,750 lb) in A/B. I compared it to the J79-GE-2 - that had a thrust of 10,350 pounds/46.04 kN dry and 16,150 pounds/ (71.4 kN ) in A/B. Thus, compared with the Israeli J79 this represente

This engine (General Electric J79-J 1E turbojet) rated at 11, 890 lbs. dry and 18,750 lbs. afterburning, thus had an increase of thrust in the order of ~16%.

Thus well in the ~10% claimed for the uprated ATAR 9K50.

Regards

Thorn

​

​

 

[kaiserbill]

I recall that the SA's purchared the rights to reproduce the F-1. I therefor advance the hypothesis that this included the 9K50 as well. Therefore complete TOT.

​

​

Thorn, Atlas Aviation purchased a licence to produce the ATAR 9K50 just before the arms embargo.
This was in addition to the Mirage F1 licence.
Atlas never announced complete manufacture of engines or F1's.
Components and spare parts were produced, for both the airframe, and engine, including "hot stream" components.
I think it was just easier and cheaper to purchase many parts on the open market.
There was a fellow over at the SAAF forum who recalled seeing the manufacturing jigs at one stage.
I think there was a rush towards the impending embargo, and thus a slow, deliberate programme as intended was nullified.
Dick Lord, in his book, recalled the amount of troubleshooting that Atlas was forced to undertake inhouse on the Mirage F1 as a result. In a roundabout way, this ensured Atlas became a very competent authority indeed on the F1.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Atlas did assemble Mirage F1's locally after shipment from France which would have required several jigs I would think. The massive repair job mating 205's front to 206's rear also required a very intricate process with custom jigs. Besides assembly and 205.5's rebuild no other F1's where built locally. The F1AZ's as already mentioned needed a ton of work as their avionics suites weren't fully developed & integrated before they were hurriedly shipped before the embargo took affect.

Regarding Atar manufacturing - I guess full engines were still a step too far for the then fledgling industry at the time with mainly micro jet engines being designed & built with probably only certain sections for the Atar engine. Complete engines were bought clandestinely.

 

[Archibald]

I didn't knew South Africa had taken F1 and Atar licences. Wow. Could have changed a lot of things.
From memory I remember than S.A purchase of F1s was delayed by some years (could have been 1971, was 1973-74) - to a date where the Aparthrid-related sanctions left next to zero margins.

Had S.A taken those licences some years earlier...

 

[Thorn]

I recall that the SA's purchared the rights to reproduce the F-1. I therefor advance the hypothesis that this included the 9K50 as well. Therefore complete TOT.

​

​

Thorn, Atlas Aviation purchased a licence to produce the ATAR 9K50 just before the arms embargo.
This was in addition to the Mirage F1 licence.
Atlas never announced complete manufacture of engines or F1's.
Components and spare parts were produced, for both the airframe, and engine, including "hot stream" components.
I think it was just easier and cheaper to purchase many parts on the open market.
There was a fellow over at the SAAF forum who recalled seeing the manufacturing jigs at one stage.
I think there was a rush towards the impending embargo, and thus a slow, deliberate programme as intended was nullified.
Dick Lord, in his book, recalled the amount of troubleshooting that Atlas was forced to undertake inhouse on the Mirage F1 as a result. In a roundabout way, this ensured Atlas became a very competent authority indeed on the F1.

Hi kaiserbill

I agree that no complete F1s or Atars were produced.

As I have read somewhere, could even be here. The 9K50 was extensively modernized.

The result of the aforementioned is probably what gave it the alledged 10% increase in thrust.

I regret to say that I never read Dick Lords book. A shame really.

Regards

Thorn

 

[kaiserbill]

I didn't knew South Africa had taken F1 and Atar licences. Wow. Could have changed a lot of things.
From memory I remember than S.A purchase of F1s was delayed by some years (could have been 1971, was 1973-74) - to a date where the Aparthrid-related sanctions left next to zero margins.

Had S.A taken those licences some years earlier...

Dassault, SNECMA, and South Africa announced the technical agreement to licence produce the F1 and ATAR 9K50 on the 27th June 1971.
The intention was to produce 100 Mirage F1 aircraft, and associated engines.

The majority of both F1CZ and F1AZ airframes were assembled by Atlas in South Africa, with the AZ being rushed toward the end due to the impending arms embargo. These were from French kits, and consisted of 48 planes. I suspect the arms embargo prevented the implementation of the full 100 licence production total, of which the remainder would have seen ever increasing local manufacture, and not assembling. This was part of a definite programme to build up a proper, industrialised competent military aviation industry.

Some background info:
The initial voluntary arms embargo of 1963 gave South Africa a pre-warning of what might potentially be coming down the pipeline regarding embargoes.
This was proven to be correct with the mandatory arms embargo via the UN in November 1977.

Thus, from 1963 already, plans were put into place to develop the local arms industry. South Africa did have heavy industry, and indeed had produced weapons in WW2, producing thousands of armoured cars, artillery pieces, weapons, and munitions, but this weapons manufacturing was allowed to wither away postwar.
South Africa did have 2 competent defence ministers in this time frame (60' and 70's) in Jim Fouche and PW Botha.
Thus, amongst others, Atlas Aviation was born in 1965, and Armscor in 1968, directly as a result of the voluntary embargo in 1963. Licences were taken out, such as for the Aermacchi mb326 (about 250 manufactured), to develop the industry.
Atlas ended up being involved in assembling, manufacturing and designing a stable that included, amongst others, the Impala, Bosbok, Kudu, Cheetah, XTP-1, XH-1, Oryx, Ace, Rooivalk, Carver ..etc

But the 1977 compulsory embargo definitely threw a spanner in the works regarding timing.
Nevertheless, the fact that an advanced combat jet programme could be launched less than 10 years later illustrates that some far-sighted decisions taken in the 1960's bore fruit.

It's worthwhile remembering that the only previous combat aircraft built in South Africa previously were the 65 Hawker Hartebeest light bombers in World War 2.
South Africa had heavy industry and competent engineers ...it just wasn't geared toward weapons or aviation. That took time, money, and effort, and technology acquisition.

 

[kaiserbill]

I didn't knew South Africa had taken F1 and Atar licences. Wow. Could have changed a lot of things.
From memory I remember than S.A purchase of F1s was delayed by some years (could have been 1971, was 1973-74) - to a date where the Aparthrid-related sanctions left next to zero margins.

Had S.A taken those licences some years earlier...

I had always wondered whether the Mirage F1E, the one fitted with the M53, would have been better suited to South Africa, with regards technology acquisition and licencing... particularly the engine. I suspect Dassault would have gladly done so, and grabbed the opportunity, especially after the disappointment in the European competition.
But I don't think it would have been ready before the November 1977 embargo, and hindsight is 20/20!

 

[Archibald]

The F1E has a tortured story. It was started partially for the French Navy, then moved to the AdA as a low-end to the ACF (partial conversion of the F1-Atar then going order).
- then it was Belgium in spring 1973 - before The Netherlands dragged them toward the F-16.

The aircraft itself flew on December 22, 1974 but within the next year was made toast, twice: by the F-16 victory on June 7, 1975, and then the death of the ACF and choice of the 2000 on December 18, 1975.

Had Belgium (PM Leburton: January 26, 1973 - April 25, 1974 ) picked the F1M53 before Leo Tindemans election, history might have been different.

Note that, while Dassault was a private ruthless arm dealer; SNECMA wasn't: it was a public company. You can bet the embargo would have applied to M53s.

 

[kaiserbill]

Indeed.
South Africa was the first foreign purchaser of the Mirage F1.
One does wonder if, as part of their order and licence production agreement in 1971, whether a clause containing the M53 version might have helped. France was willing to, as you say, partially convert ATAR orders to M53 for themselves.

But anyway, we are straying from the topic.
It is of interest simply because South Africa were keen on acquiring the M53 for Carver, and indeed the Super Cheetah and Super Mirage F1 during the late 80's.
An interesting what-if.

 

[kaiserbill]

So basically, to recap, the engine options looked at were...
In no particular order of preference:

-The SNECMA M53.
-The SNEMA M88.
-The RR Spey.
-An indigenous option.
-SMR-95

The M53 could have come through from France, via Israel through the Nammer. Possible spare parts through Taiwan, who operated the Mirage 2000 from 1992, and who formed a close triad in defence matters with South Africa and Israel.

The M88 was really only suitable for the twin engined Carver, due to thrust. Mention was made that there were negotiations with Yugoslavia, who were to use it on the Novi Avion. France was willing to turn a blind eye, as profits were excellent, and it had nothing to do with them once sold to Yugoslavia. The Yugoslavs wanted an eye watering sum to facilitate this, which might have put a brake on things. Still, needs must...

The Spey was in my opinion starting to show its age. Still, there was a developed 25 000lb thrust version that would have suited the single engine, with vanilla mk202's probably sufficient for the twin.

The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.

The SAAF Forum • View topic - Mirage F1AZ / Cheetah D with SMR-95 engine

An indigenous engine would have started with the work carried out on the ATAR upgrade programme. A predicted thrust increase of around 10% (5500-8000kg), but even with the new compressor, new turbine, new electronics, single crystal blades, and welded combustion chamber, the engine design was old.
However, the above comprehensive work on the ATAR indicates to me that this was part of a technological exercise toward a competency to design a new engine. I can see the ATAR plus being used as an interim engine, and then going toward the existing Mirage and Cheetah upgraded airframes.
I strongly suspect the realisation that a new engine had to be developed, probably indigenously unless a foreign engine fell into their lap, is why the year 2000 entry date was pushed back by 5 or 6 years and led to the Cheetah C.
Most of the other technologies for Carver were in place, or coming to fruition.

 

[Archibald]

Yes we are veering off topic. But I may open a thread in the alternate history section...

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

The SMR-95 was an engine developed from the RD-33, and flew in two versions: SMR-95A (Mirage F1 with 70 flights) and SMR-95B (Cheetah with 10 flights). It is worth noting that an engine for the Carver based on this would not have been a long as those fitted to the Mirage and Cheetah, which was lengthened for CG reasons.

Good summary Kaiserbill. On the SMR - there existed no A or B variants according to the lead engineer on the project. The Cheetah also completed a full flight test program. I know the Atar's in the Mirage 3 & F1 did have minor differences but not the SMR which used the same engine in both airframes.

Do you have any info on the sortened SMR for Carver? This is the first I hear of it... The RD-33 is actually a bit short for what it really needs to be to due to length constraints on the airframe if I don't have my facts wrong. Thus the extended SMR (which still was quite a bit shorter than the Atar) probably helped quite a bit. You will also notice its less smoky than RD-33's. The SMR F1 & a Mig 29 both flew at SAAF 75. Big difference in smoke produced.

Add to that I doubt the SAAF would have wanted two variants of the same engine in service seeing as Carver was going to overlap at least to a degree with a SMR equipped Cheetah/Mirage fleet. I already delved into the service life issue on the SAAF forum link you posted and how the change in maintenance philosophy would probably have prevented its induction, but as you said: if needs must... It was the best engine actually obtainable at the time if Carver had survived till the 2000's.

 

[kaiserbill]

BM, I have no real information on whether the SMR-95 would/should be shorter for Carver, but I am using intuition.

The engine is a vital aspect of any jet fighter.... so much so, that one might say the fighter is designed around the engine.
Air intakes and trunking, aerodynamics, fuel loads/tankage, CG considerations..etc.
It is probably harder to refit a new type of engine into an existing airframe than designing the aircraft with the engine in mind. A perfect illustration is the Kfir J79 and Cheetah C ATAR 9K50. On paper, the J79 was the better engine, but I have seen it stated a few times that the 9K50 was a better match for the airframe, nullifying any paper advantages the J79 had.

If one reads the link above, one might see the work done on the Mirage/Cheetah wrt air intake requirements... and the comment about fuselage structures and trying to keep the CG similar for Cheetah/Mirage. This led to them lengthening the rear engine/afterburner section. A design newly developed with the engine in mind, such as the Carver, may not have to follow that route so severely.

I suspect a twin installation would also get away with a shorter engine installation.

I suspect the differences between SMR-95 A and B were very marginal, and may have had more to do with how the engine interacted/ was mounted due to the rear fuselage differences of the types mentioned.

I am simply surmising.
The ATAR 9K50 is almost 6 meters long, 40% longer (over 1.7 meters) and 50% heavier (a whopping 500kg) than the vanilla RD-33.
If CG limits for a different original engine wasn't a factor, you start seeing gains.

Edit: On this note, as shown earlier in the thread, the upgraded ATAR in South Africa didn't only have increased thrust as a goal, but also a weight reduction aim. The inference in the comments was that the thrust increase was sorted, but the weight reduction was not what was hoped for, at least while it was worked on.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Kaiser, I fully appreciate the importance of the engine in 4th gen aircraft. It partly why I believe Carver I didn't get to the prototype stage - there was an unwillingness to accept the Atar is the engine it will be. The structures guys probably had difficulty in making progress with Atar, M53, Spey all being candidates and all being very different. With Carver II we have even more engines on the table.

I can't say with any conclusive proof either that the Carver II SMR wouldn't be shorter but I do reason that they already had an engine befitting of a 4th gen aircraft in the base SMR-95 that was also compatible with other types in service.

If this all of course transpired SA would probably still be under an embargo - hence the local option. As soon as it became possible they went with the cheaper "off the shelf" option, so the last thing they would be doing under embargo where it was already difficult to procure components would be to complicate the spares pool with two different engine variants instead of a single variant standardised one across all airframe types in service.

Re the Cheetah & F1 - the engine was the same with both airframes from talking to the engineer, but the cold feathers where different (obviously). They however were part of the airframe and not the engine - they connected the the SMR's hot flaps so the engine inside wasn't required to be different, but the tailfeather cone was to match the airframe.