Sentinel Chicken said:
Was the P.106B equipped with a thrust reverser? Drawings I've seen seem to suggest some sort of Tornado-like installation rotated 90 degrees to open up horizontally instead of vertically like on the Tornado.

According to Roy Boot, the P.106B canard-delta had a conventional braking parachute.

However, the conventional swept wing P.106A had a thrust reverser?

Why? Warton designed the P.106B and Brough designed the P.106A. Warton's design staff prefered braking parachutes. As you can see, early British Aerospace had its fair share or of institutional rivalries
 
How did they fit a thrust reverser on the P.106A? From looking at drawings of it, there doesn't seem to be any room either laterally or vertically for a thrust reverser to deploy, unless they had some sort of aft sliding ring.

I noticed also that the various P.106B renderings show airbrakes on the aft fuselage sides and some show twin airbrakes under the aft fuselage under the trailing edge fillet of the wing. Did any particular location become "definitive" for the P.106B?
 
According to the former BAe director of projects, the company was working closely with Saab on a joint Gripen/P110 tie-up around 1982. However, there was a 'falling out' caused by Marconi refusing to tailor the FBW system to Sweden's needs - BAe and Marconi (plus others) were privately funding P110 design at the time. However, 35% of export Gripens are now built at BAE Brough, so it worked out in the end.
 
Nice.

Source:
Henry Matthews, Prelude to Eurofighter: EAP, X Planes Profile 1, HPM 2000
 

Attachments

  • VFW-Fokker.jpg
    VFW-Fokker.jpg
    53.8 KB · Views: 1,301
  • Dornier-TKF90.jpg
    Dornier-TKF90.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 1,336
According to Henry Matthews (Prelude to Eurofighter) this is BAe's P.120 fighter derived from EAP. I've seen it described as Eurofighter EFA too though.
 

Attachments

  • P120.jpg
    P120.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 1,500
The National Audit Office did a review of the P.120 vs. EFA a few years ago and said EFA came out as 196% the cost of the UK-only P.120. If the UK share of EFA is around 40% then the 'saving' of collaboration is not that great, and when delays plus the need to 'run on' old aircraft is added in may be non-existent.
 
This is labelled as TKF-90. It looks very like EAP in wing shape, but appears to have twin fins (like the original EAP).

Source:
B R A Burns, Canards: design with care Flight International, 23rd Feb 1985
 

Attachments

  • TKF-90.jpg
    TKF-90.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 1,370
Judging the position of the canards, it could be the MBB TKF-90 design,
although here wingtip rails are shown and I'm not shure, if the wing is
cranked.
 

Attachments

  • MBB_TKF90.JPG
    MBB_TKF90.JPG
    27.8 KB · Views: 1,509
Possibly the model I posted is a slightly later revision of this design. Mr Burns ought to know his stuff as BAe chief aerodynamicist....
 
More TKF-90 stuff
 

Attachments

  • TKF90a.jpg
    TKF90a.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 736
  • TKF2.jpg
    TKF2.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 616
  • TFK5.jpg
    TFK5.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 625
  • TFK4.jpg
    TFK4.jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 683
  • TFK3.jpg
    TFK3.jpg
    61 KB · Views: 673
  • GER- VFW Fokker TKF-90_2.jpg
    GER- VFW Fokker TKF-90_2.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 1,143
  • GER- MBB TKF-90_3.jpg
    GER- MBB TKF-90_3.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 1,058
harrier said:
As I understand it the P.120 and EFA were the same design, but the P.120 was 'costed' on a UK-only basis, with fewer prototypes needed. However, Warton had earlier preferred the P.110 configuration to the 'German' one adopted for EFA.

The engine was the RR RB.540 (IIRC), not sure if this was a 'copy' of the EJ200 or a production version of the XG40 demonstrator.

The National Audit Office did a review of the P.120 vs. EFA a few years ago and said EFA came out as 196% the cost of the UK-only P.120. If the UK share of EFA is around 40% then the 'saving' of collaboration is not that great, and when delays plus the need to 'run on' old aircraft is added in may be non-existent.

Well, what you say would please Mr Dassault (father and son)... and justify their "lone venture" on Rafale... :(
 
Regarding the MBB TKF-90, there seem to be several versions of this.

Earliest seems to be the single tail, with simple plain delta wing.

Then, a cranked delta wing and twin tails.

Third, a modified complex curved cranked delta very similar to the EAP wing, but still twin tails.

Also don't forget the other TKF-90 stuff like ND102, which Dornier pushed hard. A sizeable minority in Germany wanted a smaller fighter (to allow greater numbers to be bought). Also the Dornier Rautenflugel joined wing design.

ND102: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1463.0.html
Rautenflugel: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1467.0.html
 
Of some interest - especially the earlier bit.
 

Attachments

  • EFA_Development.jpg
    EFA_Development.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 1,322
Below is from Aviation Week & Space Technology June 19th 2000.

SON OF EUROFIGHTER

Studies are underway on block changes and future derivatives of the Eurofighter, including a stealthier version with an internal weapons bay. This would meet the U.K.'s requirement for a Future Offensive Air System to replace Tornados used for deep strike missions. The under-fuselage weapons bay would take the place of a center fuel tank. Conformal fuel tanks would be added to the upper fuselage to compensate. A "wet," or fuel-carrying, vertical stabilizer also is being considered to provide additional fuel volume. Other block changes being studied for Eurofighter include incorporation of an electronically scanned array radar, or an integrated sensor system with a single aperture.

Has anybody seen any drawing or model of this steathy Eurofighter?

Cheers,
Sunho
 
Aviation Week & Space Technology also reported last week (October 29th 2007) in the story "Saab, EADS Offer Stealth Designs For South Korea's KFX" that EADS has offered a Eurofighter Typhoon derivative.

"EADS seems to have considered a new design, a Eurofighter Typhoon derivative or a baseline Typhoon. It is believed to be focusing on the middle option, using the Typhoon airframe as the basis for further collaborative development to meet the KFX requirement."

Cheers,
Sunho
 
PMN1, #29: When was the planned in service date {ISD} for this when the four countries finally signed the agreements and did the spec of the aircraft then differ much from what is coming into service now?
How would an on time in service date have affected subequent aircraft developments?


Date: It began as TKF-90, just as MRCA had been NKF-75. Those would have been nice ISDs. EFA Development MoU, 9/8/1985 (3 Nations) had "mid-1990s" ISD, retained at 16/5/1988 EF2000 Development Phase MoU (4 Nations).
Spec: all things to all men, then as now. So no real change to the external tin, some weapons changes - add Meteor - but total rethink in data management - EURODASS, EURORADAR, &tc.
Earlier ISD: Where the money and time went was software, as avionics digital data went through the same galloping obsolescence as on our desks, laps and consoles - as late as 1998 there were UK TV ads by IBM (who he?) of a power-female suggesting to her techno-geeks that it might be an idea to use their screen to Sell Something! And a techno-phobe asking "what is this He-mail stuff?"

harrier, # 47: The National Audit Office did a review of the P.120 vs. EFA a few years ago and said EFA came out as 196% the cost of the UK-only P.120. If the UK share of EFA is around 40% then the 'saving' of collaboration is not that great...may be non-existent.
That assumes UK-solo could have done it, and would have done it. That dismisses partners' skills, presumes they are there just to boost business, presumes Major and Blair would have gaily gone on spending as solo cost and time spiralled. None of the above. The wonder is that through umpteen Elections after the Peace Dividend became available in 1991, all 4 partners stayed the course. Delay was caused, not by collaboration, but the search for a window of initial operational capability before the next Electronic Counter-Counter-xN-Measures negation. Gripen, Rafale, ditto. F-22, ISD Jan.2006, stems from ATF, 1981 (stealth concept, 1974).

Typhoon (/Rafale/Gripen/F-22/F-35) will now go through, not a Mid Life Update, but iterations - rolling, constant. That may include deleting the Mark 1 eyeball...but what you see is unlikely to change for a half century. No point. These are mere platforms.
 
Quote from AlertKen: "That dismisses partners' skills,.."

I don't suppose the report listed these?

KB
 
I tell you 2 events from MRCA trials.

No.1 prototype coming together at Manching. BAC front and back end bolted on to MBB midriff. No prob, off to pub. Truck arrives from Turin, tarpaulin covering wing. Brits and Germans stand ready to guffaw. Tarp off, wing hung on, Itals step back. Brits/Germans look, feel for production joints, not there. Ferrari. Mutual respect thereafter.

PO4, avionics, flying out of Caselle. All goes horribly wrong. Down intact by airmanship that in UK warranted a gong or two. Fault traced to Elliott/FIAT AFCS. The Elliott bit.

Please purge your mind of the notion that Tornado and Typhoon were Brit-led, burdened by imposed odd amateurs. In R&D, not so. In production, kindly compare and contrast Warton Lightning/Canberra volume with MBB/FIAT F-86, F-104G etc.
 
Of course the UK could have done 'EFA' alone, and it would have been cheaper and faster overall, although different (The UK-only P.110 was changed to the TKF-90 like Typhoon to get the Germans on board). It would also have been cancelled in all probability. The German and Spanish governments added political delays, and the German-led FBW software was a disaster IIRC, until GEC took over the lead.

Obviously the main benefit of international collaboration is that it makes cancellation hard. It always adds to total costs and timescales - every experience and study has shown that. This is due to duplication/triplication etc., the need to wait for several national approval systems before starting work, multitude of changing requirements etc.

None of this is 'foreigner bashing' (would be silly as I don't have a drop of British blood in me, being partly German and Spanish in descent), just recognises that collaboration does have an effect, essentially by adding 'too many cooks'. Where they come from in national terms does not matter, but the political need to share work can mean that the contracts do not go to the 'best', or if they do they have to share the work.

Finally, as to 'mere platforms', Typhoon is very much shaped by certain needs (high AoA turns, high SEP at M 1.6+) that mean it is less than great in other roles. Already one external change is being flight tested, a leading edge root extension. Just because today's approach to defence means there are few major 'mid-life updates' that does not mean that this approach will not be viable again between now and 2057, especially as new 'platforms' become rarer.
 
Odd TKF-90 study by MBB/VFW

Source:
Flight International, 29 April 1978
 

Attachments

  • MBBVFWTKF.jpg
    MBBVFWTKF.jpg
    51.4 KB · Views: 1,115
overscan said:
Dornier TKF-90

Source:

Flight International, 9 June 1979

The visual similarity between this design and the Brough P.158 is indeed remarkable.

Of course, you might also say that it resembles a swept wing YF-17 or F/A-18A.
 
Flight International, 16 June 1979

"Post 403" project from BAe with three engines; two outboard turbojets and a turbofan in the centre.
 

Attachments

  • Three-engine-post-403.jpg
    Three-engine-post-403.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 1,008
VFW 1982 FSW study

Flight International, 5 May 1984

Great find Paul, it is almost the same configuration of contemporary Grumman ATF configuration :eek:
 
I was briefed on the three engine job at Rolls when I was younger and weighed much less. It was rather cool, combining a high-BPR engine with two small pure jets (a bit like lift jets). The fan stream flowed through the little jets. In the cruise, they either windmilled or idled. For supersonic cruise/dash, the jets cut in and supercharged the fan stream, and the fighter went supersonic on dry thrust.
 
Wow, I had never heard of this one. Does it have two or three exhausts? I'm just trying to figure out the flow path. It is a cool idea.
 
"Of course, you might also say that it resembles a swept wing YF-17 or F/A-18A."

From Aviation Week 1979 23-26, just notice the description
 

Attachments

  • Dornier_TKF90-text.JPG
    Dornier_TKF90-text.JPG
    44.2 KB · Views: 552
  • Dornier_TKF90.JPG
    Dornier_TKF90.JPG
    41.3 KB · Views: 595
Yes, Dornier worked with Northrop, and MBB with McDonnell-Douglas I think (they would have participated in the AFTI program had McDonnell-Douglas won). The Dornier/Northrop cooperation ended up with the ND-102.
 
It makes sense that it resembles the F/A-18A, because the YF-17 was originally developed based on research performed by Northrop regarding the needs of a European Multirole Fighter.
 
Found in Flight Archive - the P.120.

Compared to EFA of the date, it had simple fixed intakes and non-cranked wing. Variable intake of EFA were insisted on by Germany and not needed for UK AST 414.
 

Attachments

  • P.120.jpg
    P.120.jpg
    101.6 KB · Views: 1,213
UK fighter thoughts
British Aerospace has been studying new fighter designs for some time, first for the Royal Air Force AST 403 effort and more recently for the trinational European Combat Aircraft (ECA) studies. Top right is a conventional swept-wing design with gothic leading-edge extensions and single all-moving fin. Lower right is a highly unconventional tilt-engine V/Stol design with close-coupled canard control surface. Below is a canard/delta layout coinciding with designs produced by ECA partners MBB and Dassault-Breguet. All designs are single-seat, twin-engine aircraft

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1980/1980%20-%202908.html
 

Attachments

  • 1980- P.96.jpg
    1980- P.96.jpg
    62.6 KB · Views: 824
  • 1980---ECF.jpg
    1980---ECF.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 772
  • 1980--P103.jpg
    1980--P103.jpg
    76.1 KB · Views: 371
Back the the pros and cons of collaboration debate - the rationale was probably because the UK government started getting worried about spiraling costs of development during the 1950s. The UK aerospace industry was a few years ahead of anyone else, and was constantly getting its fingers burned whilst getting up the learning curve - Swift, Valiant and Comet to name a few. The decent UK aircraft - Canberra, Lightning, Harrier; VC-10, BAC1-11, (Concorde) never got the export orders they deserved. Whilst many people blame the government for bottling it on the development costs I'd suggest that it was because UK was no longer leader of an empire that would accept its manufactured goods. For the same reason that the 19th century world was full of UK manufactured steam engines, the 20th century world was full of US manufactured aircraft.

We had and still have the capabilities to build any aircraft by ourselves I'd suggest, but people don't want to buy them off us! Collaborating on the Typhoon will ensure that we do not have a repeat of the mass purchase of the F-16 across Europe when the Harrier or Jaguar could have done the job!!
 
Though clearly poor quality, this drawing represents the only "official" partial three view of the MBB Eurofighter configuration I've seen.

Source:

Hannes Ross, EADS-Military Aircraft & Mike Robinson, The Boeing Company, X-31: 20 Years of Successful International Cooperation
AIAA 2003-2572
 

Attachments

  • MBB-J-90.jpg
    MBB-J-90.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 419

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom