Stavatti Aerospace

Built they any hardware? Helped they (at least) during the design process of some real aircraft? Did anybody expressed any real/significant interest in their designs? If the answers sound like no-no-no-no-no-no-no, than we can formulate the final question:

Did the Stavatti Corp. do anything during their history, what deserves them some respect as the serious aircraft designers/manufacturers?
 
That's it. There is nothing sacred left. I don't want to live in a world where Stavatti gets some street cred. (Sound of door shutting followed by screeching tires and crash).
 
Jane's has always been open minded about startups and wannabe's, because on very rare occasions they make the cut. Good.
This story is different, Stavatti is not an aerospace concern but a case study in psychiatry and this is well known.
Jane's should have known better.
Shaking my head over this one. :-\
--Luc
 
Journalists are fallible and magazines need filling. Press releases get turned into stories all the time. Janes are not exempt from this except in their innate conservatism. I've never found Janes a gold standard in journalism.
 
overscan said:
I've never found Janes a gold standard in journalism.

Same here. Jane's is excellent for quick reference on most ongoing programs, and pretty reliable when it comes to giving figures and data, but there have always been articles on aircraft and/or manufacturers that never materialized, and mistakes about versions that had not yet been clarified (notably—and understandably—on Soviet/Russian aircraft). Stavatti's being there, though disappointing, is clearly not a surprise. The real shock is that they featured it on the cover.
 
It didn't quite make it to the cover, there's a funky picture of a Brazilian Super Tucano on that. I did have a Cox-esque rant in the office. Still, we'll find out in late 2010/early 2011 either way!

RP1
 
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a435978.pdf

Alternate version: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a435236.pdf
 
Was Stavatti ever a serious organization? Anything I have ever seen charecterized it as a joke at best and a scam at worst. I know it is posted in the Theoretical and Speculative but they did it seems present a proposal to the USAF.
 
No, not a serious organisation for building aircraft, except perhaps in the founder's head.
 
Here's stavatti's sollution for the PCA ;D

The SM-39 Razor will be a Stavatti Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) Solution with Super Speed, Deep Weapons Magazines and Broad Band Stealth.

https://twitter.com/StavattiAero/status/887886227340378112
 

Attachments

  • Stavatti_PCA.JPG
    Stavatti_PCA.JPG
    28.7 KB · Views: 663
  • Stavatti_PCA1.JPG
    Stavatti_PCA1.JPG
    62.2 KB · Views: 656
Wow, I just looked over their recent tweets. They've moved on from being fantasists to potential con artists -- they sure look like they're taking money from various companies under the guise of developing aircraft they have no ability to produce.
 
"SM-39 Razor Air Superiority Fighter"


Source:
https://contest.techbriefs.com/2013/entries/aerospace-and-defense/3879

The SM-39 is a next generation air superiority fighter and fighter-bomber. Designed to perform the missions of the F-22, F-15, F/A-18E/F and the now retired F-14 Tomcat and A-6 Intruder, the SM-39 is a twin engine, piloted or unpiloted autonomous, low observable aircraft. With two internal weapon bays, a variable dihedral empennage, double slotted flaps with boundary layer blowing, thrust vectoring nozzles and titanium foam metal sandwich construction, the SM-39 is a sixth to seventh generation fighter and a direct bridge between atmospheric aircraft and future reusable space fighters.

Of radical planform, the SM-39 is a triple fuselage design featuring a streamlined center, high fineness ratio primary fuselage accompanied laterally by right and left mounted secondary fuselages. The secondary fuselages begin as highly swept wing strakes into which the aircraft wing, empennage, an a single ventral air intake and engine nacelle is blended. This planform configuration results in a significant reduction in supersonic wave-drag, allowing the aircraft to have a volume distribution that is very near the Sears-Haack ideal. Designed for supercruise, this configuration places the wing leading edge within the shock cone of the secondary fuselage wing strakes at Mach numbers as high as 2.5.

In addition to reducing wave drag, the SM-39's triple fuselage design allows for a an efficient distribution of primary aircraft systems. The center fuselage houses principal avionics, including the radome and AESA radar, as well as the cockpit, nose landing gear and two internal weapons bays. The secondary fuselages are home to a high pressure recovery, serpentine variable geometry internal compression air intake, a single variable cycle afterburning powerplant and the main landing gear. Both the center and secondary fuselages house internal fuel tanks, sensors and electronic countermeasures. Distributing aircraft systems laterally as well as longitudinally, the three fuselages result in greater internal volume with lower overall wave drag than any supersonic fighter in service today.

Designed for airspeeds in excess of Mach 3, the SM-39 will be powered by two 50,000 lb class afterburning powerplants. These engines may be enhanced performance derivatives of the P&W F119 or GE YF120, or next generation variable cycle powerplants. The current baseline design features a new design variable cycle turbofan/turbojet that benefits from a titanium diboride cermet compressor, combustor and turbine stage that allows TITs as high as 4,400º F, resulting in a maximum static thrust of 52,400 lbs with an SFC of 1.35. Cruise SFC of this new engine is predicted at values as low as 0.53.

For continuous high speed operations and a corrosion resistant 75 year operational life, the SM-39 will have titanium foam metal sandwich skins with a titanium diboride foam metal core. This nearly monocoque structure will be supporded by an internal framework of laser welded titanium frames, bulkheads and longerons.

Pioneering new approaches in aerodynamics, airframe structures, efficient variable cycle turbine propulsion, plasma low-observability and boundary layer control and integrated avionics, the SM-39 is a Mach 3.3+ fighter with a stall speed as low as 103 KTAS in the landing configuration.
 

Attachments

  • 20130701115231_SM39_CUTAWAY_1.jpg
    20130701115231_SM39_CUTAWAY_1.jpg
    137.4 KB · Views: 616
  • 20130701115231_SM39_DTF_AD_1001.jpg
    20130701115231_SM39_DTF_AD_1001.jpg
    108.6 KB · Views: 594
  • 20130701115231_SM39_1003_RCAF_RENDER_112.JPG
    20130701115231_SM39_1003_RCAF_RENDER_112.JPG
    271.5 KB · Views: 587
Which video game is this for, again?
 
TomS said:
Wow, I just looked over their recent tweets. They've moved on from being fantasists to potential con artists -- they sure look like they're taking money from various companies under the guise of developing aircraft they have no ability to produce.

Stavatti claiming a strategic alliance with Yugoimport-SDPR, and its sister company UTVA. and that it will develop and produce new aircraft at a 925,000 sq ft production center in Pancevo, Serbia. Also claiming meetings in Kiev, Ukraine with Antonov, Motor Sich, and Ukroboronprom. I would have thought that these companies would vet Chris Beskar and Stavatti Aerospace before agreeing to a meeting.
 
I can hear structural engineers all across the country laughing their a$$es off when they see that design. "Hmmm, what if we made it as structurally inefficient as possible to make it much heavier than it needs to be?"
 
bring_it_on said:
Here's stavatti's sollution for the PCA ;D

The SM-39 Razor will be a Stavatti Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) Solution with Super Speed, Deep Weapons Magazines and Broad Band Stealth.

https://twitter.com/StavattiAero/status/887886227340378112
I don't care that they're a scam anymore, we need this. With lasers and hypersonic missiles. For reasons.
 
Moose said:
bring_it_on said:
Here's stavatti's sollution for the PCA ;D

The SM-39 Razor will be a Stavatti Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) Solution with Super Speed, Deep Weapons Magazines and Broad Band Stealth.

https://twitter.com/StavattiAero/status/887886227340378112
I don't care that they're a scam anymore, we need this. With lasers and hypersonic missiles. For reasons.

But "Super Speed" is so last year. Any design worth its salt will have, "Hyper Speed". Come on Stavatti, where is your marketing department?
 
Moose said:
bring_it_on said:
Here's stavatti's sollution for the PCA ;D

The SM-39 Razor will be a Stavatti Penetrating Counter Air (PCA) Solution with Super Speed, Deep Weapons Magazines and Broad Band Stealth.

https://twitter.com/StavattiAero/status/887886227340378112
I don't care that they're a scam anymore, we need this. With lasers and hypersonic missiles. For reasons.

Only if it also transforms into a giant robot.

PS: I found the early design sketches.

vf-14-m7plus-fighter-fanmade.gif


vf-14-m7plus-battroid-fanmade.gif
 
hello, I'm new to the forum and admittedly found it due to the thread topic. I would have preferred to jump into a previous discussion on this topic but unfortunately that thread was locked. I saw that discussion generated a lot of heated debate, but I am not here to argue. A quick search shows the last topic was from 2015.

I have no connection or vested interest in Stavatti, but this happened recently and it's why I'm following this now.
http://www.janes.com/article/71775/stavatti-moves-closer-to-machete-production-in-serbia

A quick background, Yugoslavia was an odd little country that tried to straddle the line between NATO and the USSR. If the cold war was a tug-of-war, then Yugoslavia was one of the ropes, and paid the price eventually. At it's height in the 1980's, , it was capable of manufacturing jet aircraft and helicopters, powered by license built Rolls Royce Viper Turbojets. It started building a modern Gen-4 fighter aircraft before the Republic imploded. Today, most of that capability is lost although some of the test-facilities like the large wind tunnel I believe are still operational in Serbia. The only aircraft being manufactured there currently is a small prop trainer, the Lasta 95.

Now Stavatti, I won't waste time going over this as a lot has already been said. here
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9308.15.html
and here
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,24343.msg252607.html#msg252607

they did actually acquire their first developmental aircraft recently, the Javelin prototype from the now defunct Aviation Technology Group. That first flew 12 years ago, not sure if it's still airworthy?
http://defence-blog.com/news/stavatti-aerospace-unveils-new-javelin-military-jet-trainer-for-usaf-t-x-competition.html

here is the scope of their partnership with Yugoimport SPDR

http://www.stavatti.com/stavatti-enters-into-a-strategic-partnership-with-jugoimport-utva/

My questions to the good folks here
The whole push-prop design. Very few modern aircraft built using it, and aside from some push-pull flying boxcar thing from Vietnam, no modern military has ever used one AFAIK? From what I could gather, the rear prop tends to act as a very effective stabilizer, which is not very desirable in a combat aircraft. Then again, the Machette is intended as a COIN, so maybe maneuverability is not a primary concern? ? Is it possible that the newest computer based design and virtual-testing software could give this old idea a new life?

Second, the Pratt & Whitney Canada PW150. This engine seems pretty Universal, but how readily available is it really? Seems like in this political climate, any country can be declared a "rogue nation" at the drop of a hat and embargo's imposed, especially on "dual-use" equipment like turbine engines. is this really the best choice for a power-plant when tens of millions of dollars on the line?

thanks.
 
A lot to
cover. Although the engine is manufactured in Canada, I am sure there is some US content, and it is probably not easy to replace. I understand that Airbus is having trouble selling some airliners to Iran with US approval due to certain parts. However, this is the way it goes. There is always China or Russia if they are concerned about those things. Look, I am 66 years old and I've been getting Air International since it was RAF Flying Review. This magazine is full of of companies with big dreams, great blueprints, and investors to fleece. I'm also reminded of some outfit that created a homebuilt supersonic sportplane. It went through more corporate reorganizations, bankruptcies, etc than completed airplanes.
Stavratti is know on this and other forums for years. The question was always was this outfit just someone who created a virtual aerospace company for his own amusement, someone with big ideas and no clue of the work, time, and capital required to go from a snappy website to aircraft in mass production, or a con man. It's somewhere between 2 and 3. Just don't give him any money you can't afford to throw away.
 
hesham said:
Welcome aboard Draganm,and nice find.
thanks :)

royabulgaf said:
Look, I am 66 years old and I've been getting Air International since it was RAF Flying Review. This magazine is full of of companies with big dreams, great blueprints, and investors to fleece. I'm also reminded of some outfit that created a homebuilt supersonic sportplane. It went through more corporate reorganizations, bankruptcies, etc than completed airplanes.
no argument from me there , the number of companies that have not only come up with amazing designs, but actually created and flew promising prototypes, and then still went bankrupt is amazing.

royabulgaf said:
Stavatti is known on this and other forums for years. The question was always was this outfit just someone who created a virtual aerospace company for his own amusement, someone with big ideas and no clue of the work, time, and capital required to go from a snappy website to aircraft in mass production, or a con man. It's somewhere between 2 and 3. Just don't give him any money you can't afford to throw away.

I don't know, but IMHO, based on other posts from people here who have corresponded with him, I would tentatively pin it at somewhere between 1 and 2.
2 things have greatly changed the game here.

1) he is partnered with RUD now and has a flying prototype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATG_Javelin
Granted it's not "his prototype" and that partnership with another "hobby firm" is negligible, but the prototype itself is not. It was built with investment from an International state sponsored firm, Israeli Aerospace Industries and was always intended as a military trainer. I have no illusions about it winning USAF TX, it will never achieve more there than gain some exposure there (and that's probably the entire intention ). However the global players now who could wind up buying it are many new emerging economic blocks. The global situation is more unstable than ever, and if you're small country that could be the focus of a "regime change" operation, even a small air force could be the difference between being seen as a sitting duck or place you further down the list of easy targets. To do this, somewhere between a prop trainer and your Mig's or JF-17's you need a LIFT aircraft . While some would argue that field is full, if you take away things that a major superpower can instantly cripple with an embargo, your choices shrink drastically.

2) Stavatti now has a State sponsored partnership with a country that is currently building aircraft and has a history producing Jets. This is huge IMO. For Stavatti it's the infrastructure and Capitol he's been looking for. For Yugoimport SPDR it's a chance to access a working prototype, possibly license to build a current Turbofan design, and possibly more investment from Western backers. I would love to know where the Javelin is, my 1st guess is in pieces at the Utva factory.

Granted there's many things can and probably will go wrong, but it's not the same "photoshop company" it was even 2 years ago.

3917L-1.jpg
 
I realized I strayed from the premise from the first post of the Machette turbo-prop production to the Javelin LIFT concept. I think it raises the prospect of this possible scenario
The Machette is what has made the news in Janes Defense article, with a hypothetical sale to the Philippines. This is almost certainly the aircraft Beskar wants to build.
The Javelin is what Yugoimport is interested in, although a Turbo-prop COIN is not without market possibilities of it's own. The De-mothballing of the OV-10's recently being a case in point.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068
 
How can OV-10s kick A$$ against ISIS when they had highest casualty rates in vietnam? Small arms fire brought them down very easily.

Sound like PR lies to me to sell obsolete designs. The aerospace industry truly is degenerating.
 
Well I'm no expert on the OV-10 Bronco, I just know they brought 2 back and ISIS didn't manage to down either one. Their losses in Vietnam were high but they also lost more than twice as many Skyraiders ,4 times as many F105's , and 5 times as many F4 Phantoms.
I think for successful operation of this type of slower moving COIN aircraft such as OV10 or Machette, where you benefit from the high loiters times and excellent Pilot to ground observability, a low threat environment is required.

For a State wishing to acquire such a platform, doesn't seem like many options out there to choose from except the Embraer super Tucano. The Iraqi army went so far as to even weaponize a pair of Cessna 208's.


Something just doesn't look right when your launching missiles from a plane with fixed tricycle landing gear :eek:
An_AC-208_fires_a_Hellfire_at_practice_target.jpg
 
kcran567 said:
How can OV-10s kick A$$ against ISIS when they had highest casualty rates in vietnam? Small arms fire brought them down very easily.
Maybe the jungle is less thick in Iraq than in Nam? Which reduces the need for low-and-slow predictable-path straffing runs.

Maybe the local tendency to expend gobs of ammunition without aiming helps, too. Who knows.
 
kcran567 said:
How can OV-10s kick A$$ against ISIS when they had highest casualty rates in vietnam? Small arms fire brought them down very easily.

Sound like PR lies to me to sell obsolete designs. The aerospace industry truly is degenerating.

We aren't in the early 70s any more. In Vietnam the OV-10s had an extremely limited weapons capability, Zunis and M-60s, and that brought them into the weapons range of a fairly disciplined opponent. In Syria and Iraq, they were likely using APKWS from stand-off ranges, or designating from even further out. As a surrogate to develop CONOPS for SOCOM's light attack project they're perfectly adequate.
 
draganm,

Actually, those Cessna 208s came from the US equipped to carry AGM-114s. While they were designed for small air arms like the then "new" Iraqi Air Force, the Iraqis themselves had nothing to do with the design.

Officially known as AC-208s, they are built by ATK and have been sold to the Iraqi and Lebanese air forces.
 
The logic behind arming Cessna Caravans or crop-dusters is to out-gun the local ISIS/Al Queda/drug lords/etc. but not the USAF in case the USAF has to invade a second time.
 
From Krila 4/1996,

here is a strange jet fighter concept,invented by Stavatti,to this moment I don't know if this company
is really exist or it and its designs were all fake ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    291.6 KB · Views: 133
  • 2.png
    2.png
    320.6 KB · Views: 140

Attachments

  • kkk.jpg
    kkk.jpg
    692.7 KB · Views: 119
They existed. Just haven't churn out any prototypes and apparently not having any production facilities.

Their designs are conceptual atm. Stalma for one is conceptual.

I think there was an old thread here dealing with it.
 
Not only have we had this thread, this design, and this discussion before, hesham was involved then.

That's right my dear Paul,but when I saw a proposal from it to USA T-X competition,that made me
confuse about its credibility.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom