Atlas FCA-1 Carver fighter project

[Thorn]

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.

Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn

I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.

 

[Thorn]

Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn

I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.

Thanks BLACK_MAMBA

Regards

Thorn

 

[Thorn]

Hi Black_Mamba.

Just wanted to touch base with you to find out whether I have reacted to all your posts.

Regards

Thorn

 

[Thorn]

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.

Hi kaiserbill

Just wanted to touch base with you to find out whether I have reacted to all your posts.

Regards

Thorn

 

[Archibald]

The Atar was first ran in 1948 and was a derivative of the BMW 003 / 018.
ATAR: Atelier Technique et Aéronautique de Rickenbach

Snecma Atar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It started at 1800 kg of thrust, then 4500 kg in the 101 variants; then 6000 to 7200 for the final Atar 9.
1800*4 = 7200 : so thrust was multiplied by four between 1948 and 1968: in twenty years. Not too bad for a WWII era turbojet !
First aircraft to get it in French service were Vautours and SMB-2s in 1957.
Last Atar aircraft to go were the Aéronavale SEM and AdA Mirage F1s... in June 2014.
Hell of a career: 57 years of service !

Problem was SNECMA had difficulty creating a viable successor to it: it lasted way too long. While it did an honorable job on the Mirage F1, including the Iraqis ones, it was essentially obsolete since 1970. The M53 and M88 finally finally solved that issue.

The Atars were serviced and repaired at a military facility called the AIAA in Floirac, near Bordeaux.
I got my logistics internship there in April-June 2014: at the exact time they were shutting down the Atar and ramping up the Rafale's M88.

Needless to say it was a quantum leap: imagine jumping from WWII legacy analog, electro-mechanical tech, right into the digital age. Even with the M53 as an intermediate step, that was one heck of a change.

Interestingly enough a Rafale M88-2 is comparable in thrust to a 9K50, in the 7000 kgp range. Only 1000 pounds of thrust, 7500 vs 7100.
But size and weight wise, there is a gulf: a M88 is merely 30% of an Atar.
Shame they couldn't put one in, say, Morocco's F1s: but as shown by South Africa with MiG-29 engines, CG would be a major issue.

A tribute to the Atar are the Iraqis F1s.
I mean, at times in 1986 the EQ-5s were loaded with
- an enormous 2200 L belly centerline tank
- two Exocet missiles
- Magic 1 for self-defense
- ECM pods
Which is already a rather enormous bombload, for the Mirage itself, and for a single-Atar aircraft with limited thrust.
And that, in a very hot climate further degrading Atar thrust: jet engines truly hate hot climates.
How did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me. They certainly would have welcomed a M53 additional thrust. Yet they fought with Atar 9K50, and even killed a handful of Tomcats with that.

 

[Archibald]

All this, to say... Atar 9K50 factsheet (from the CAEA Bordeaux aviation museum webpage, via Google translate)

C.A.E.A

www-caea-info.translate.goog

Length

6589 mm

6589 mm is 6.59 meters: 21 ft. Pretty long for a turbojet. No surprise lighter and shorter turbojets / turbofans played havoc with Mirages CoG.

And 1582 kg: 3487 pounds.

 

[Springtime]

Sorry if this has been covered before but could the lack of information be because with the Carver being a Mirage F-1 Replacement CZ and AZ it was going to be Nuclear Capable at least pre 1989

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Sorry if this has been covered before but could the lack of information be because with the Carver being a Mirage F-1 Replacement CZ and AZ it was going to be Nuclear Capable at least pre 1989

The F1's where never nuclear capable as far as I know. The Buccaneer was the designated carrier but Carver II would have taken over some roles so it is possible it would have carried the bomb.

However, that isn't the reason for all the secrecy. Such high level secrecy was applied to all projects as they usually involved clandestine exchanges of information. Even projects like Ovid carried such high levels despite being research projects. SA also doesn't have automatic declassification policies after a certain number of years so projects tend to sit even though the technology has long become obsolete. Clandestine involvement from other parties/govts that will reflect badly if revealed are another possible reason.

 

[Mech]

The Atar was first ran in 1948 and was a derivative of the BMW 003 / 018.
ATAR: Atelier Technique et Aéronautique de Rickenbach

Snecma Atar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It started at 1800 kg of thrust, then 4500 kg in the 101 variants; then 6000 to 7200 for the final Atar 9.
1800*4 = 7200 : so thrust was multiplied by four between 1948 and 1968: in twenty years. Not too bad for a WWII era turbojet !
First aircraft to get it in French service were Vautours and SMB-2s in 1957.
Last Atar aircraft to go were the Aéronavale SEM and AdA Mirage F1s... in June 2014.
Hell of a career: 57 years of service !

Problem was SNECMA had difficulty creating a viable successor to it: it lasted way too long. While it did an honorable job on the Mirage F1, including the Iraqis ones, it was essentially obsolete since 1970. The M53 and M88 finally finally solved that issue.

The Atars were serviced and repaired at a military facility called the AIAA in Floirac, near Bordeaux.
I got my logistics internship there in April-June 2014: at the exact time they were shutting down the Atar and ramping up the Rafale's M88.

Needless to say it was a quantum leap: imagine jumping from WWII legacy analog, electro-mechanical tech, right into the digital age. Even with the M53 as an intermediate step, that was one heck of a change.

Interestingly enough a Rafale M88-2 is comparable in thrust to a 9K50, in the 7000 kgp range. Only 1000 pounds of thrust, 7500 vs 7100.
But size and weight wise, there is a gulf: a M88 is merely 30% of an Atar.
Shame they couldn't put one in, say, Morocco's F1s: but as shown by South Africa with MiG-29 engines, CG would be a major issue.

A tribute to the Atar are the Iraqis F1s.
I mean, at times in 1986 the EQ-5s were loaded with
- an enormous 2200 L belly centerline tank
- two Exocet missiles
- Magic 1 for self-defense
- ECM pods
Which is already a rather enormous bombload, for the Mirage itself, and for a single-Atar aircraft with limited thrust.
And that, in a very hot climate further degrading Atar thrust: jet engines truly hate hot climates.
How did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me. They certainly would have welcomed a M53 additional thrust. Yet they fought with Atar 9K50, and even killed a handful of Tomcats with that.

"ow did Iraqi pilots managed to get their Mirage off the ground, alway puzzle me."
Iraq had some seriously long runways.

 

[Mech]

Hi BLACK_MAMBA

I read somewhere, quite lang ago that they had COG problems with the shorter Russian T/fan on the F1.

What they did was to mount it forward in the space occupied by the Atar, and installed a pipe to carry the efflux out the rear.

Regards

Thorn

I brought that exact question up with the lead engineer and to this day he is still perplexed how it came about. He suspects that factions in govt/upper echelons of the defence force started it once an 4th gen purchase was on the table instead of upgrading souped up 3rd gen aircraft. In my personal view the SMR upgrade in the F1 looks a little more elegant without the vertical tail overhanging the nozzle as on the Cheetah. Also a possible source for a poor performance rumour to start.

In the SMR they had an smaller engine of lighter weight so they could place the engine exactly where they wanted it in the airframe. The end result maintained the CoG range of the baseline Cheetah & F1 but in an lighter overall weight with more thrust available. The Cheetah especially benefitted from the upgrade even more so than the F1, although the F1 had a more extensive flight test program.

The SMR compressor is actually placed about 600mm further rearward compared to the Atar and still the engine is shorter in the airframe. The Atar is a big lump of engine!

The SMR also carried a Russian stigma as still the enemy in the SAAF which is further ground for not wanting it/starting poor performance rumours I guess. It also required a different maintenance philisophy compared to the Western types but for that I will refer you to the SAAF forum link Kaiser posted. That adds to the list of reasons I suspect why the SAAF didn't want it and actively tried killing it behind closed doors I would bet.

Thanks BLACK_MAMBA

Regards

Thorn

I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !

While I have heard this rumour, it one of plenty around this project. See the rumour about the CoG problems on the Cheetah for example... Another rumour that has no substance. I won't call the Klimov rumour false, but it was clear many didn't want the russian engine so plenty negative rumours have come around the project.

The objective fact we know is that the defence budget started dropping rapidly with the onset of democracy lessing funds for local projects - one of the reasons Carver died. The possibility of buying a proper 4th gen fighter on the open market most likely also enticing the killing off the drive to re-engine the Cheetah and F1AZ fleets - ignoring its impact on the local aviation industry of course. Some of the other possible reasons for not wanting it has also been discussed on various threads on this site.

 

[Springtime]

Question sorry if this was already answered

was there any effort to try and sell the Carver as a Export Fighter after 1994 or a Updated version as a alternative to the JAS-39 to keep SA R&D and Airspace Manufacturing capabilities modern and capable

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Question sorry if this was already answered

was there any effort to try and sell the Carver as a Export Fighter after 1994 or a Updated version as a alternative to the JAS-39 to keep SA R&D and Airspace Manufacturing capabilities modern and capable

Carver as a project was cancelled by 1991. Even if it still existed it would not have gotten success without a SAAF order.

Atlas and later the rebranded Denel already struggled and couldn't sell Rooivalk. Not to even speak of a paper project. Even the SMR upgrade offer attracted no buyers and it actually completed a flight test program.

 

[Bladerunner]

On another note, the first credible picture that materialized of the single engine version was the fiberglass presentation model, and it shows it carrying what appears to be the LRAAM ramjet missile. In the book "Those who had the power" it's length is said to be 5.38m, and the single engine Carver was 16.06m in length. I made a quick and rough drawing on the picture to estimate with proportional dimensions, and the 5.38m missile seems to check out. Wonder what the pylon might have looked like?

 

[Mech]

I heard somewhere that the deal breaker for the SMR-95 was that the Russian company wanted to lock in the maintenance contract to the point where engines had to be shipped back to them for routine overhauls. Once you where financially committed to the powerplant, they had you over a barrel for future maintenance costs.
They have a reputation for doing this. Ask the Indians !

While I have heard this rumour, it one of plenty around this project. See the rumour about the CoG problems on the Cheetah for example... Another rumour that has no substance. I won't call the Klimov rumour false, but it was clear many didn't want the russian engine so plenty negative rumours have come around the project.

The objective fact we know is that the defence budget started dropping rapidly with the onset of democracy lessing funds for local projects - one of the reasons Carver died. The possibility of buying a proper 4th gen fighter on the open market most likely also enticing the killing off the drive to re-engine the Cheetah and F1AZ fleets - ignoring its impact on the local aviation industry of course. Some of the other possible reasons for not wanting it has also been discussed on various threads on this site.

Also easier for certain "squirrels" to hide their nuts in BVI bank accounts when you are buying foreign aircraft.
Local upgrades like Cheetah or Super F1 leave pesky paper trails for SARS to follow back "sales commissions" for hard working middlemen.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Also easier for certain "squirrels" to hide their nuts in BVI bank accounts when you are buying foreign aircraft.
Local upgrades like Cheetah or Super F1 leave pesky paper trails for SARS to follow back "sales commissions" for hard working middlemen.

Buying an off the shelf option is the cheaper of the two. In Gripen South Africa got a better aircraft far cheaper than Carver would have been. And a far more capable one than reengined Cheetah's and F1's! Those who made the decisions at least got that one correct looking purely at what aircraft would provide the best defense to SA airspace. SA also failed to implement the degree of industrialization initially planned for the Hawk and Gripen fleets which would have helped somewhat to maintain a local aviation industry. They initially planned to service the engines, avionics etc all in SA. A steady declining budget and mismanagement at Denel (Atlas's re branded successor) put pay to such aspirations.

I doubt "sales commissions" as you call it had such a big impact in deciding between local or off-the-shelf. The local option was always going to be more expensive for an aircraft of lower capability and the lower cost option is usually the one that gets Treasury's vote!

 

[Bladerunner]

Don't you guys ever wonder what the actual in service name would have been, except for referring to it as Carver as per the project name...? That means that the Cheetah C could have been the "Tunny C"...lol.
Seeing that all the cool indigenous animal names have been taken already, I thought I'd have a bit of fun. In line with mythology and mystery, Carver and Pegasus could supposedly fly, and both don't exist. So, here you go, with a bit of humor, I present to you "Pegasus".

 

[kaiserbill]

Any aircraft manufactured in South Africa, whether licence produced or locally designed and manufactured, got an indigenous fauna name.

Rooivalk, Cheetah, Impala, Oryx, Bosbok, Kudu...etc.
This would not have changed.
This tradition goes back all the way to the 1930's to the local production of the Hawker Hartebeest.
It's not like South Africa is short of wildlife names.
What the name would have been is anybodies guess, but I suspect a big cat, or local raptor or eagle name, just as the Rooivalk was named after.
As the pinnacle of local development, like the Rooivalk, that would make sense.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

Any aircraft manufactured in South Africa, whether licence produced or locally designed and manufactured, got an indigenous fauna name.

Rooivalk, Cheetah, Impala, Oryx, Bosbok, Kudu...etc.
This would not have changed.
This tradition goes back all the way to the 1930's to the local production of the Hawker Hartebeest.
It's not like South Africa is short of wildlife names.
What the name would have been is anybodies guess, but I suspect a big cat, or local raptor or eagle name, just as the Rooivalk was named after.
As the pinnacle of local development, like the Rooivalk, that would make sense.

I think Bladerunner was only making a joke Kaiser. Have a closer look at the markings...

That said - there are some exceptions. The Aermacchi AM.3C was never produced in SA but was named "Bosbok" (Bushbuck) in Service. Conversely the C-47's that were upgraded locally under Project Felstone all were renamed C47-TP Dakota with many informal names around "Dakota" like Turbo Dak etc. No local fauna name given unlike the Oryx programme built on upgraded Pyma's acquired clandestinely.

Also, Ovid kept its Project name initially. Admittedly it was only an technology demonstrator and was renamed ACE in the ADM phase, but it was called Ovid during Aerotek's testing. So there is some precedent that Carver could have possibly have stayed Carver, but there is a whole range of fauna it could have been named after so little use in speculating.

 

[Bladerunner]

Any aircraft manufactured in South Africa, whether licence produced or locally designed and manufactured, got an indigenous fauna name.

Rooivalk, Cheetah, Impala, Oryx, Bosbok, Kudu...etc.
This would not have changed.
This tradition goes back all the way to the 1930's to the local production of the Hawker Hartebeest.
It's not like South Africa is short of wildlife names.
What the name would have been is anybodies guess, but I suspect a big cat, or local raptor or eagle name, just as the Rooivalk was named after.
As the pinnacle of local development, like the Rooivalk, that would make sense.

Kaiserbill, my post was purely some humor. Pegasus is mythological creature, and the aircraft that took it's place post cancellation is Gripen, which is also a mythological creature. Not sure if you noticed the castles had a unicorn instead of a bokkie. Then there's the pilot, a unicorn from one of my son's favourite stories Go Jetters, called "Ubercorn". It's simply hilarious...lol.

Of course it would be first prize for an indigenous animal name. I prefer bird names to land animals for aircraft. The Blouvalk is one I like, and there are more like Sperwer, Bat Hawk, etc.

The SAAF didn't do to well naming aircraft after indigenous fauna, seeing they kept to the original names of many. For example:
Hurricane, Spitfire, Beaufighter, Shackleton, Skymaster, Dakota, Hercules, Transal, Harvard, Buccaneer, Mirage, Alouette, Super Frelon, Astra, A-109 LUH, Merlin, Mercurius and even Gripen.

Cheers

 

[Graugrun]

So I have been pretty good friends with one of the authors of "Those who had the power" for many years (He also created and published the "VEG" magazines many years ago). Obviously he is very well known to our member 'Thorn'.

He was and is still very involved in the design of various military vehicles in SA and makes use of some extremely sophisticated software to assist him with this. Without going into detail, he was also involved in some very highly classified military projects in the past.

We spent one evening chatting about project Carver specifically and we proceeded to work on his software to create the following picture. We started with the picture of David Fabrish and his team (many of whom he knew) standing before the jig of what would be the first full scale mock-up of the single engine Carver (see image C1 & C2 below). Using both his skill/knowledge and the capabilities of his powerfull software, we extrapulated the barebones design in the jig (and with great accuracy I must say, especially regards various dimensions) and developed the following design (see image C-3 below)

We added in the three other aircraft of the countries that were all involved in some degree in it's devlopment. Each country involved was given a piece of the aircraft's design to concentrate on with South Africa being the project lead/design authority. (each country would then be able to manufacture/build the final design in each of their countries respectively). Once Carver was formally dropped by us, they each carried on (I assume having been sold whatever final design we had gotten to) with their own further development and different final products.

Knowing which countries had which parts of the aircraft that they had to complete the design work on, he took each aspect of such from the Taiwanese Ching-Kuo, Israeli Lavi and the much later recipients of the Carver design pack (via the Israeli's), being the Chinese with their Chengdu J-10 - (whom he believes is proberly the most accurate copy of what the final chosen Carver design would have looked like) BTW, the Chinese enlarged the design a bit, so the Carver would have been not as large physically). See image C4 below.

What the twin engine design would have looked like is difficult to say, although the Taiwanese twin engine Ching-Kuo I would guess is going to be a good one to work off of.

Another aircraft to pay very particular attention to in terms of the whole Carver story is the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17.

So hopefully the above would give many some more insight as to why Carver has remained so cloaked up until today and hopefully a more accurate view (or rather some highly educated speculation) into what the final (single engined) Carver product would really have looked like.

NOTE: it was past 01h00 in the morning when we were finishing up and the last item he added was the jet pipe, so it's not 100% scaled and fitted... We were just too tired at that time to bother with perfecting it...

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

@Graugrun that profile looks a little too familiar... See attached.

I suspect it might be disinformation from PV-L... The rig/mockup when studied closely clearly shows a mid mounted wing design relative to the engine and the forward most bulkhead clearly has signs pointing towards a twin intake set-up - similar to the line drawings posted here on this forum and in the book. A design that was kept constant through to fibreglass model revealed of the twin engine concept. The drawings discussed on this forum further confirm the three view as printed in Guardians as quite accurate to what the single engined Carver would likely have looked like.

The F-CK-1 had US involvement through technology transfer from ~ 1982 with a first flight in May 1989 which was roughly a year after Carver's requirements were altered which forced the change to a twin engine design. This would also mean a design freeze a number of years prior when Carver was still a single engine, Atar (Spey has also been rumoured on this forum although I doubt the feasibility in obtaining it) powered design with a delta wing. None of the Carver concepts that have surfaced over the years had a conventional wing layout. I have spoken to an engineer who believed Carver should have had a conventional wing design but his opinion fell on deaf ears. The rumoured M88 concept might have some connection to F-CK-1 though I will admit but again there is still a significnt difference in engine size so little value from transferred technical data to be obtained. Sources however still point to Atar or SMR as the most realistic engines for the twin design.

The Lavi engineers joined the program at a similar time frame after Lavi cancellation in 1987 meaning most of their work on a single engined Lavi would have been useless on a larger twin engine design. From what I gather they were payed very generous sums of money to act more as consultants than actually doing serious design work. This would make sense as Carver's twin engine evolution seems to have been little more than a scaling up/re-design to medium sized design based on the original design apart from a rumoured twin fin concept of which no actual proof is yet to be uncovered. There was no switch in layout to a canard-delta design etc. Lavi also featured extensive US involvement so besides some of the avionics developed for it that ended up in the Cheetah C I have difficulty in seeing the transfer of data other than that in the minds of the hired engineers.

The Lavi and J-10 link is a popular one on the internet. Other than general layout similarities (Chengdu might well have liked what they saw in the Lavi) I see absolutely no carry over between the two. Like with Carver and Lavi - there might have been information in the minds of poached engineers. It is rare that China "obtain the full data pack or has a technical transfer of information" of an aircraft and instead of incorporating a RD33 derivative they go about a total redesign! The scale, wing design etc are all very different between J-10 and Lavi. I see it in a similar light to the persistant J-20 and Mig 1.44 connection calls. Converging engineering solutions.

 

[Bladerunner]

So I have been pretty good friends with one of the authors of "Those who had the power" for many years (He also created and published the "VEG" magazines many years ago). Obviously he is very well known to our member 'Thorn'.

He was and is still very involved in the design of various military vehicles in SA and makes use of some extremely sophisticated software to assist him with this. Without going into detail, he was also involved in some very highly classified military projects in the past.

We spent one evening chatting about project Carver specifically and we proceeded to work on his software to create the following picture. We started with the picture of David Fabrish and his team (many of whom he knew) standing before the jig of what would be the first full scale mock-up of the single engine Carver (see image C1 & C2 below). Using both his skill/knowledge and the capabilities of his powerfull software, we extrapulated the barebones design in the jig (and with great accuracy I must say, especially regards various dimensions) and developed the following design (see image C-3 below)

We added in the three other aircraft of the countries that were all involved in some degree in it's devlopment. Each country involved was given a piece of the aircraft's design to concentrate on with South Africa being the project lead/design authority. (each country would then be able to manufacture/build the final design in each of their countries respectively). Once Carver was formally dropped by us, they each carried on (I assume having been sold whatever final design we had gotten to) with their own further development and different final products.

Knowing which countries had which parts of the aircraft that they had to complete the design work on, he took each aspect of such from the Taiwanese Ching-Kuo, Israeli Lavi and the much later recipients of the Carver design pack (via the Israeli's), being the Chinese with their Chengdu J-10 - (whom he believes is proberly the most accurate copy of what the final chosen Carver design would have looked like) BTW, the Chinese enlarged the design a bit, so the Carver would have been not as large physically). See image C4 below.

What the twin engine design would have looked like is difficult to say, although the Taiwanese twin engine Ching-Kuo I would guess is going to be a good one to work off of.

Another aircraft to pay very particular attention to in terms of the whole Carver story is the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17.

So hopefully the above would give many some more insight as to why Carver has remained so cloaked up until today and hopefully a more accurate view (or rather some highly educated speculation) into what the final (single engined) Carver product would really have looked like.

NOTE: it was past 01h00 in the morning when we were finishing up and the last item he added was the jet pipe, so it's not 100% scaled and fitted... We were just too tired at that time to bother with perfecting it...

Sorry man, but I don't agree.
Mock-up Phase 1 had a very specific design, and the mock-up was true to the drawings, as well as the windtunnel model. There's now way the single engine mock-up could lead to the designs mentioned. Even the display models of later twin engine designs were much sleeker, and without the overcurvy lines.

 

[kaiserbill]

Interesting discussion.
I'm only going to add right now that it was told to me by an engineer on the project that the Head Designer was not a fan of canards, believing them to be a fad.
It is also to be noted that many different layouts were studied in the early design phase, just like any other fighter project.
The model I saw that I mentioned earler confirms that. I suspect it was a very early configuration looked at.

 

[kaiserbill]

Also, just to add to the Triad of South Africa, Israel, and Taiwan. It is known and demonstrable the defence links between them.
In the context of the indigenous fighter jet programs of the three, design of which were happening roughly at similar times in the 1980's, there were obvious and sensible opportunities for co development at the subsystem and component level, rather than the overall actual designs.

As stated by myself previously, a whole host of things could fall into this category:
Ejection seats, avionics, control boards, radomes, controls, flight control systems, actuators, motors, cooling systems, fuel management systems, frameless windshields, canopies, tyres, undercarriage, braking systems, electrical subsystems, APU's, materials (both structural, panels, and coverings), fasteners, pylons.... etc...etc...the list is endless.

This is where I suspect the real co-operation lay, whether physical components,design work, or sourcing rather than the actual overall design of each fighter.

In fact, I would be very, very surprised if it didn't happen. Leveraging the increased totals across all 3, avoiding needless duplication of these types of subsystems and components.
This is how many programs are run today around the world.

Just my opinion.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

While I agree that the three programs might have shared information I cannot see a deep level of co-operation extending past the weapons system and other avionics and maybe anchillary components. The Cheetah C after all shared quite a bit with Lavi's weapon system (itself rooted in US systems) and I do believe Carver would have built on that basis.

The three designs all had vastly different design layouts that would have required unique systems and striving to use common parts would just have resulted in compromised designs. Also the variety of engines and electrical generation capacity would have meant it difficult to design an elegant solution. Everything I've seen indicates an Atar for Carver so they would have had to design a lean ship to reach maximum performance.

Lavi and F-CK-1 also had US involvement to a varying extent thus I see it difficult that they would rely on SA to help design systems with such an capable partner. I can only see them passing information to SA at a premium.

 

[Archibald]

Also, just to add to the Triad of South Africa, Israel, and Taiwan. It is known and demonstrable the defence links between them.
In the context of the indigenous fighter jet programs of the three, design of which were happening roughly at similar times in the 1980's, there were obvious and sensible opportunities for co development at the subsystem and component level, rather than the overall actual designs.

As stated by myself previously, a whole host of things could fall into this category:
Ejection seats, avionics, control boards, radomes, controls, flight control systems, actuators, motors, cooling systems, fuel management systems, frameless windshields, canopies, tyres, undercarriage, braking systems, electrical subsystems, APU's, materials (both structural, panels, and coverings), fasteners, pylons.... etc...etc...the list is endless.

This is where I suspect the real co-operation lay, whether physical components,design work, or sourcing rather than the actual overall design of each fighter.

In fact, I would be very, very surprised if it didn't happen. Leveraging the increased totals across all 3, avoiding needless duplication of these types of subsystems and components.
This is how many programs are run today around the world.

Just my opinion.

Thinking about it... Dassault created the 2000-5 just for Taiwan in the early 90's; shame they couldn't help with the Ching Kuo, one way or another.

 

[Graugrun]

Ok, so we've got some healthy debate going - always a good thing! Thanks to Black_Mamba, Kaiserbill and Bladerunner for your insightfull input. Firstly I hope that bladerunner doesn't mind me using his edited pic for my own purposes.

I've been sitting on this info for at least 5 years, so my memory of the full discussion that night is a bit feint, however some that I remember is:

1. I also immediately pointed out the twin 'air-intake' cavities at the front of the jig (marked dark blue in Bladerunner;s pic), however (PL-V) quickly showed me (via his software model that we were busy building up) that it's directly behind the cockpit and so would not at all allow any space whatsoever for the pilot and cockpit (in relation to the spine etc...), so that option would be almost impossible in relation to the specs that the jig model showed.

He was pretty sure that it must be a chin mounted air-intake. He stated that one of our definate design allocations on the project was the 'black-art' of the intake (via the CSIR) and that although he used the intake mouth shape of the Lavi (as he had already sketched this for another article), the intake was actually to look much more like that of the J-10 (with the bottom lip protruding forward).

2. I also mentioned the higher 'wing mounting' lug points, but I remember him having a good counter argument as to why he still believed that the wing was lower down (he proberly also had the J-10 in mind). I still disagree with this and do think it was to be more of a mid body mount. (as per Bladerunner's mark-up in yellow in his attached pic)

3. I do believe that there should be some more space behind the nose for the radar back-end and various avionics (they can't all fit in the spine and area behind the cockpit). So a longer nose is more likely in my eyes, it was just so late then, that I didn't bother bringing it up.

4. The fuselage are of his model (that covers the jig portions) is extremely accurate, He has some very impresive design skills and knowledge, and his software is awesome in terms of what it can all do!

5. The Taiwanese were responsible for the rear verticle fin/s design (and perhaps the rear stabilizers too?)

6. In terms of carnards, Fabrish was perhaps not correct in terms of his assertion (looking at a lot of the next gen aircraft to come out, notably Typhoon and Rafale). Could design data from various wind tunnel modeling force him and his team to change their minds on the that aspect?

I'll cover some more aspects in another post, let's just chew on some of the above points first..

BTW - I saw at least 5-6 of the Carver models way back at Atlas Aviation many, many years ago - at that time I had various access as a contractor (my badge had a wheel on it, meaning I could drive just about anywere in the complex). However at that time I was far more interested in sneaking into the R-1 hanger to watch the Rooivalk ADM/EDM etc being built. I thought at the time that those models would soon come out in the open as everything was opening up (military secrets etc), so I didn't bother too much with them. They were in one section of offices and they were simply plonked on two office desks, and IIRC one was even on the floor behind one of the desks. I vaguely remember one looking a lot like a Mirage 4000, but the verticle fin had a distinctly different look to it. If I had only knew then how they would remain so secretive, I would have paid massive attention to them, instead of the cursory look over I gave them on two different visits.... They were all painted as per the model in my pic 'C1' above - or similar, I do remember that some had SAAF markings on, and some didn't.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

1. I also immediately pointed out the twin 'air-intake' cavities at the front of the jig (marked dark blue in Bladerunner;s pic), however (PL-V) quickly showed me (via his software model that we were busy building up) that it's directly behind the cockpit and so would not at all allow any space whatsoever for the pilot and cockpit (in relation to the spine etc...), so that option would be almost impossible in relation to the specs that the jig model showed.

He was pretty sure that it must be a chin mounted air-intake. He stated that one of our definate design allocations on the project was the 'black-art' of the intake (via the CSIR) and that although he used the intake mouth shape of the Lavi (as he had already sketched this for another article), the intake was actually to look much more like that of the J-10 (with the bottom lip protruding forward).

2. I also mentioned the higher 'wing mounting' lug points, but I remember him having a good counter argument as to why he still believed that the wing was lower down (he proberly also had the J-10 in mind). I still disagree with this and do think it was to be more of a mid body mount. (as per Bladerunner's mark-up in yellow in his attached pic)

Thanks for the feedback Graugrun.

I will however be quite honest - it is starting to feel like PL-V had a design in his mind and forced the proof to fit. Splitting the intake trunking has only been done on early nose intake Migs. Had SA decided on a chin intake spiltting it in two down the fuselage sounds like the perfect way to help remove the benefits thereof in high alpha flight in my view. It is either an indicator that the intake design was different(!) or he tried to force his design idea to work with an airframe that wasn't designed around it... The only chin intake regarding Carver I came across was an engineer who worked on Carver when upon doing his masters designed the aircraft he believed Carver should have been. His design looked very similar to the Boeing LWF 908-909 concept with a lesser sweep wing and a Atar. For the actual design - especially in the jigs photo - there is just no evidence in my view. CSIR would not have concluded quite correctly that a chin intake would work well only for the intake trunking and its performance to be severely compromised by the cockpit placement.

Same about the low mounted wing. All the detail in the jigs point to a mid-mount. Reasoning why it should be mounted lower again feels like forcing the frames to fit a personal idea of the end result instead of it being the other way round.

 

[zen]

The jig doesn't look complete, only partial.
Frames ahead of the intake ducts and frames for the rear structure seem lacking. It looks like a central set only. Which makes things hard to estimate .....a security feature of the posed photograph?

 

[kaiserbill]

I'm glad this discussion is being had, as I have always thought the design team standing in front of those jigs should yield important clues.
I have to agree that those jigs fit far better to the existing models we have of Carver than a low wing, chin intake Lavi type. The fact that the later, larger twin-engined Carver model mirrors the original single engined design supports this


On a personal level, a Lavi'esq design, or Lavi derivative never made sense.
This viewpoint seems to have come about as a result of press reports of hiring ex-Lavi engineers, which happened. But by this stage, the Carvers design layout was mostly in place. Just as the Lavi's was.
Those Israeli engineers were brought in to work on an existing project, just like other nationalities were.
The lead designer of Carver himself had nothing to do with Lavi, for example.

Taiwan's IDF fighter was almost wholly reliant on US design input, not Israeli.
I see nothing really interchangeable between the IDF and Lavi, from a design point. About the only similarities are the nose/radome, and that is only looking briefly.

The engine choices dictated differences.
Israel's requirements were different to South Africa's.
The considerable expense South Africa ploughed into Carver, via infrastructure, wind tunnels, design tools, materials technology, engineering..etc demonstrates quite clearly a different path than a Lavi derivative.
Otherwise, you are reinventing the wheel.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

@Graugrun there is good evidence (not all public) for the mid-wing position and the side-mounted intakes. It seems to me that Pierre has taken a personal theory (closer links between Lavi & Carver than previously thought) and applied it to the evidence.

 

[Graugrun]

Thanks again for all the replies! I have been rather busy of late, so could not reply any sooner, as I would have liked to...

@overscan (PaulMM) - Note my point from my post #154 above:

2. I also mentioned the higher 'wing mounting' lug points, but I remember him having a good counter argument as to why he still believed that the wing was lower down (he proberly also had the J-10 in mind). I still disagree with this and do think it was to be more of a mid body mount. (as per Bladerunner's mark-up in yellow in his attached pic)

So I am pretty much in agreement with you - however I do remember he had good reason (and showed it to me off of the jig photo) to every point I raised that disagreed with his (pity it was so long ago, and my memory has faded a fair bit). So I took a closer look at the photo of the jig - Bladerunner note that the 'Curviture to wing' marked in yellow on your pic gets pretty much replicated on all the attached pieces (ringed in red on my pic below). I'm sure that was PL-V's argument as to why he didn't want to reference them for the wing station and shape. - The lugs seem to indicate attachment points for them (wings?) - I'm certainly not an engineer, so cannot comment much further..

Note too that the forward bulkhead with the twin twin openings in it's side, also dips down a fair bit at the bottom in relation to it's overall size (my arrow in green) - reference it for example to the rear most bulhead's bottom profile.

Of course PL-V could simply be trying to force the design to fit his idea of what it looked like, however who's to say that he does not have more intimate knowledge of at least certain of Carver's sub-sections/parts that he knew were accurate? He certainly approached the whole thing with a rather open mind from my perspective and worked exclusively on getting the definate parts that the jig represented right (took an hour or so), before he started drawing any conclusions on any other aspects of the plane. It would actually be really nice if a couple of us could join up at his place and go through this excersise again, with all your much more learned (than mine) input!

We could at least assume that the fuselage section (boxed red) in his pic below is at least very accurate (with some question regards the bottom section for the air intake - but remember the forward bulkhead does indicate this to some or other degree). This should help us a bit more in terms of what the single engined version would really have looked like.

 

[zen]

Thanks again for all the replies! I have been rather busy of late, so could not reply any sooner, as I would have liked to...

@overscan (PaulMM) - Note my point from my post #154 above:

2. I also mentioned the higher 'wing mounting' lug points, but I remember him having a good counter argument as to why he still believed that the wing was lower down (he proberly also had the J-10 in mind). I still disagree with this and do think it was to be more of a mid body mount. (as per Bladerunner's mark-up in yellow in his attached pic)

So I am pretty much in agreement with you - however I do remember he had good reason (and showed it to me off of the jig photo) to every point I raised that disagreed with his (pity it was so long ago, and my memory has faded a fair bit). So I took a closer look at the photo of the jig - Bladerunner note that the 'Curviture to wing' marked in yellow on your pic gets pretty much replicated on all the attached pieces (ringed in red on my pic below). I'm sure that was PL-V's argument as to why he didn't want to reference them for the wing station and shape. - The lugs seem to indicate attachment points for them (wings?) - I'm certainly not an engineer, so cannot comment much further..

Note too that the forward bulkhead with the twin twin openings in it's side, also dips down a fair bit at the bottom in relation to it's overall size (my arrow in green) - reference it for example to the rear most bulhead's bottom profile.

Of course PL-V could simply be trying to force the design to fit his idea of what it looked like, however who's to say that he does not have more intimate knowledge of at least certain of Carver's sub-sections/parts that he knew were accurate? He certainly approached the whole thing with a rather open mind from my perspective and worked exclusively on getting the definate parts that the jig represented right (took an hour or so), before he started drawing any conclusions on any other aspects of the plane. It would actually be really nice if a couple of us could join up at his place and go through this excersise again, with all your much more learned (than mine) input!

We could at least assume that the fuselage section (boxed red) in his pic below is at least very accurate (with some question regards the bottom section for the air intake - but remember the forward bulkhead does indicate this to some or other degree). This should help us a bit more in terms of what the single engined version would really have looked like.

Ok I can conceed a possible point about the front frame, being reinforced for the nose wheel leg attachment. Though thickening the lower part of the circle is again a structural matter. Not really indicative of much.
But that means there is literally no frame complete as they would all need extra elements to encompass a ventral inlet structure.

Edit additional.....
After looking hard at that picture, I'm starting to think it's nothing but the basis of a mockup. Only the maingear mount looks real. The rest look like wooden planks cut to partial shape for the mock up to be viewed from one side only.

 

[zen]

Thanks again for all the replies! I have been rather busy of late, so could not reply any sooner, as I would have liked to...

@overscan (PaulMM) - Note my point from my post #154 above:

2. I also mentioned the higher 'wing mounting' lug points, but I remember him having a good counter argument as to why he still believed that the wing was lower down (he proberly also had the J-10 in mind). I still disagree with this and do think it was to be more of a mid body mount. (as per Bladerunner's mark-up in yellow in his attached pic)

So I am pretty much in agreement with you - however I do remember he had good reason (and showed it to me off of the jig photo) to every point I raised that disagreed with his (pity it was so long ago, and my memory has faded a fair bit). So I took a closer look at the photo of the jig - Bladerunner note that the 'Curviture to wing' marked in yellow on your pic gets pretty much replicated on all the attached pieces (ringed in red on my pic below). I'm sure that was PL-V's argument as to why he didn't want to reference them for the wing station and shape. - The lugs seem to indicate attachment points for them (wings?) - I'm certainly not an engineer, so cannot comment much further..

Note too that the forward bulkhead with the twin twin openings in it's side, also dips down a fair bit at the bottom in relation to it's overall size (my arrow in green) - reference it for example to the rear most bulhead's bottom profile.

Of course PL-V could simply be trying to force the design to fit his idea of what it looked like, however who's to say that he does not have more intimate knowledge of at least certain of Carver's sub-sections/parts that he knew were accurate? He certainly approached the whole thing with a rather open mind from my perspective and worked exclusively on getting the definate parts that the jig represented right (took an hour or so), before he started drawing any conclusions on any other aspects of the plane. It would actually be really nice if a couple of us could join up at his place and go through this excersise again, with all your much more learned (than mine) input!

We could at least assume that the fuselage section (boxed red) in his pic below is at least very accurate (with some question regards the bottom section for the air intake - but remember the forward bulkhead does indicate this to some or other degree). This should help us a bit more in terms of what the single engined version would really have looked like.

Ok I can conceed a possible point about the front frame, being reinforced for the nose wheel leg attachment. Though thickening the lower part of the circle is again a structural matter. Not really indicative of much
But that means there is literally no frame complete as they would all need extra elements to encompass a ventral inlet structure.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I agree that only one frame looks like a frame, the others appear to be wooden cutout placeholders.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I took a closer look at the photo of the jig - Bladerunner note that the 'Curviture to wing' marked in yellow on your pic gets pretty much replicated on all the attached pieces (ringed in red on my pic below). I'm sure that was PL-V's argument as to why he didn't want to reference them for the wing station and shape. - The lugs seem to indicate attachment points for them (wings?) - I'm certainly not an engineer, so cannot comment much further..

Note too that the forward bulkhead with the twin twin openings in it's side, also dips down a fair bit at the bottom in relation to it's overall size (my arrow in green) - reference it for example to the rear most bulhead's bottom profile.

Of course PL-V could simply be trying to force the design to fit his idea of what it looked like, however who's to say that he does not have more intimate knowledge of at least certain of Carver's sub-sections/parts that he knew were accurate? He certainly approached the whole thing with a rather open mind from my perspective and worked exclusively on getting the definate parts that the jig represented right (took an hour or so), before he started drawing any conclusions on any other aspects of the plane. It would actually be really nice if a couple of us could join up at his place and go through this excersise again, with all your much more learned (than mine) input!

We could at least assume that the fuselage section (boxed red) in his pic below is at least very accurate (with some question regards the bottom section for the air intake - but remember the forward bulkhead does indicate this to some or other degree). This should help us a bit more in terms of what the single engined version would really have looked like.

From the (hard) information we do have Carver was going to have a delta wing and LERX that ran till the windshield start. The frames don't all have the same profile. It gets slimmer to the front with the middle two being the thickest. This all points to a mid mounted wing (location and thick mid frames) with LERX (thinning towards the front). Bladerunner already pointed out the attachment point on the one real frame where the wing would be bolted onto it. There would have been more on other frames.

Edit additional.....
After looking hard at that picture, I'm starting to think it's nothing but the basis of a mockup. Only the maingear mount looks real. The rest look like wooden planks cut to partial shape for the mock up to be viewed from one side only.

Correct. Nothing except profile can be read from 3/4 frames. The main gear one is the only one approaching a real part.

I still firmly believe PL-V tried to make his idea of what Carver should/could have looked like fit with a mock-up where nothing matches his theories - but do fit a known profile of a mid win with a split intakes quite well.
If you are having to use smart answers/rebuttals as to why the design is actually totally different than to what it seems to me is a very good indicator you might be wrong about your assumptions...

 

[zen]

Where are the windtunnel models?

One thing that really rams home the seriousness of the Novi Avion is the presence of multiple windtunnel models to validate computer modelling.

Surely these would be declassified by now?

 

[kaiserbill]

There are windtunnel models that many have seen.
I'm not sure you realise the secrecy involved in South Africa's weapons programmes during sanctions and the apartheid era. Security and secrecy was very very tight. And still is. Cameras were forbidden, for example.

An example of the security was that I had heard of a new tank when in the military, from an armour guy. A new tank, not an Olifant. Just described as a new tank, being tested and refined. It took years later for it to be revealed. This was the Loggim, or TTD.

Yugoslavia's programme was in the open, with open collaboration. South Africa's was very much closed, behind a veil of secrecy.

I was shown pictures of a model by an engineer at an Atlas Aviation subsidiary. It looked to me like a very early design study from Carver. I recall it had canards, a Double-delta wing slightly elevated from the Mirage /Cheetah low wing position, wingtip rails, squarish intakes, a raised cockpit..etc. He insisted on my not displaying it anywhere. This was prominently displayed in an internal foyer of their offices.

I have since lost the 2 images in a computer crash, which grieves me. What is clear is, that like many programs, different configurations were looked at, and as the programme matured, windtunnel models were built, before the final design was selected.

I share your frustration though.