Too many STOL technology options?

danielgrimes

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
8 October 2007
Messages
57
Reaction score
8
Since the 1950s, Britain has been fortunate in that Airforce and Naval aircraft requirements have been aligned around STOL performance...it hasn't helped though. We've had the Supermarine legacy technology blown flaps concept through Scimitar, TSR2 and Buccaneer. Across the other side of the factory, Vickers pushing VG into the Tornado. Hawker/Bristol thrust vectoring in the Harrier. Meanwhile, Rolls Royce favoured lift jets, and EE produced tilt jet designs. Could one technology have sufficed for all requirements. If so which would your preference have been and what would the alternative history have looked like?


I would happily see VG left on the drawing board; given the 'stealth' limitations of the Pegasus (intake with high RCS, exhausts with high IR signature, very noisy), I'm very reluctantly going to leave thrust vectoring on the drawing board and go for blown flaps.


So post the introduction of the Supermarine Scimitar in 1957, I'd envisage improvements to reduce the weight and improve control. Building on the Hunting H.126 (commissioned a couple of years earlier), I'd then envisage a CAS/Carrier Harrier replacement. I don't know of drawing board design in this slot and not sure if it could work on a through deck cruiser? in the early 1970s post TSR2 cancellation, I'd envisage the BAC Type 577 filling the Phantom, Buccaneer and Tornado space.
 
Back
Top Bottom