From a 2003 BAe patent - hedge against F-35 cancellation/non-participation I'd wager...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dataviewbooks.com%2Fvs-1.jpg&hash=89f44b8d776c22fdb6783ea652d761132f711aab)
Apparently, the aft portion of the ductwork would be stowable, with the forward area being collapsible...
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V/STOL: A History in Patents
http://www.dataviewbooks.com (http://www.dataviewbooks.com)
Looks ugly
Wow, that looks impractical to say the least. Wonder how the Typhoon would look with an F-35 style lift fan aft of the cockpit.
Good grief! It looks like Wallace & Grommit designed it! :o
It looks very, um, British. Bodgit and Scarper, and so forth. One heck of a maintenance hog, I guess.
Is someone taking the piss <_<
Looks like they've designed a good way to use the jet exhaust for heating large buildings......
:blink:
That's a joke, right?
Just a silly question : whatif the EJ-200 of a Typhoon were replaced by a pair of Pegasus ? After all, late variants of this one (AV-8B+) deliver 11 tons of thrust even without reheat... that's more than the EJ-200 :wacko:
I suppose that heavy mods would be needed... hot shot engeneer, we need your wise advices!
It is not an act of war...
Figure 5 is dangerous, coz engine might inhale its own exhaust... :unsure: nr 6 also looks bad :unsure:
In 2003 I went on a V/STOL aircraft design course at Cranfield. I remember the Warton lads drank a lot, but really....! "Pay attention at the back!"
There were various schemes for canard V/STOLs from Warton in the 1980s, and one used a RALS scheme (also known as 'bleed and burn'!) with a duct taking fan air from an aft engine to a ventral fuselage burner aft of the cockpit. It was the P112, picture in BSP Fighters. But hot gas like the picture above? Still, Nick Park is from Preston!
You can't be serious.
Those are the most ridiculous and impractical V/STOL setups I've ever seen!
I don't know what the intricacies fo the design are, but I can tell you that looks bad.
I'm a Ph.D. Electrical Engineer, so while I don't know aircraft design, I do know dodgy engineering when I see it. This looks dodgy.
In addition, that woudl impose so much weight and drag penalty, I would think it would more than negate any STOV/L or V/STOL advantages.
This is some of the most ludicrous stuff I've ever laid eyes upon!
there are some good ideas for supersonic V/STOL in Gunston's 1986 "Future Fighters" book. Perhaps the boys who designed this abortion should look in there...
Oh, trust me, I'm not a fan, just a reporter ;-)
text pages:
http://www.dataviewbooks.com/vt.jpg (http://www.dataviewbooks.com/vt.jpg)
http://www.dataviewbooks.com/vt2.jpg (http://www.dataviewbooks.com/vt2.jpg)
There was a Flight report on a STOVL Eurofighter design in the early 80s, using vectoring nozzles at the back and Harrier style nozzles forward
QuoteThere was a Flight report on a STOVL Eurofighter design in the early 80s, using vectoring nozzles at the back and Harrier style nozzles forward
'Would take a spot of fancy engine design, possibly along the lines of the "twin-tandem" fan engine that Vought looked at with RR, but it could be done.
Kinda makes sense for a ZELL type application if you dropped the duct assembly after reaching flight speed. Much quieter and a lower launch signature than rockets. Might be OK for a point-defense interceptor.
Cheers, Jon