AvPro Projects

[Grey Havoc]

Funny how Tempest's planform reminds me of an old AVPRO concept. Give or take a few small differences.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1492.0.html

Well AVPRO was in effect a BAe (later BAE Systems) subsidiary specialising in the creation of advanced concepts, IIRC.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Interesting carrier concept but completely impractical with that layout. Interesting to see just what they were thinking, smoking. The carpet perhaps.

 

[litzj]

Funny how Tempest's planform reminds me of an old AVPRO concept. Give or take a few small differences.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1492.0.html

it is more similar to concept of Northrop-Grumman's.

 

[TomS]

Funny how Tempest's planform reminds me of an old AVPRO concept. Give or take a few small differences.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1492.0.html

Well AVPRO was in effect a BAe (later BAE Systems) subsidiary specialising in the creation of advanced concepts, IIRC.

Really? I never got that impression at all. They were a fantasy art shop that had one semi-plausible idea (the EXINT Pod) that made it to mockup. Their relationship to BAe seems to have been very one-sided -- Mike Ryan claiming there was a relationship and BAe saying nothing at all.

AvPro was definitely not a subsidiary of BAe to any real degree. While they still had a web presence, they had some very dodgy-looking scheme to sell stock in the company direct to investors. If they'd had a financial relationship with BAe, that would not have been on.

 

[mrmalaya]

That said, I don't think they were treated as anything more than a concept/art generating machine by the industry at the time. I don't think it is a Stavatti type situation. Whilst the detail of their designs are sometimes questionable in hindsight they did have a role to play in the 90s.

If only to bring some energy to the process.

 

[flateric]

doesn't look like BAe subsidary at all
https://web.archive.org/web/20000529070008/http://www.avpro.co.uk:80/frameset.htm
but Ryan and Oliver input in aerospace popularization is certain

 

[TsrJoe]

Count me in too, thirded

 

[Triton]

The book Warplanes of the Future written by Ryan and Oliver, published by Motorbooks International (August 1, 2000), that features many of the artist's impressions of AvPro concepts.

 

[flateric]

The book Warplanes of the Future written by Ryan and Oliver, published by Motorbooks International (August 1, 2000), that features many of the artist's impressions of AvPro concepts.

Was even translated to Russian.

 

[flateric]

..

 

[hesham]

From, X-planes secret aircraft and secret missions

 

[JohnR]

I liked the transport aircraft; there is only a line drawing, the image must be one of the lost one's. It always reminded me of Thunderbird Two.

 

[Hood]

Funny how what looked plausible in the early 2000's now looks like some teenager's doodling of what a cool fighter would look like.

 

[Terring]

A 2001 RTS game named Empire Earth has used some of the AvPro concepts for some of its futuristic aircrafts.





Here are the X-Wing Titan and the UCAV Archangel flying together. In-game they're called Pegasus Transport and Phoenix Fighter/Bomber respectively.



This is the FOAS-1 UCAV, which in-game is named B-122 Wyvern Medium Bomber.



And I just realized that the white airplane, named Nebula Fighter, is based on a Lockheed Martin concept and not on an AvPro one. Sorry for that.

 

[uk 75]

Avpro fans might like to check out their naval stuff here
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/stealth-trimaran-aircraft-carrier-stac.6441/

 

[martinbayer]

A 2001 RTS game named Empire Earth has used some of the AvPro concepts for some of its futuristic aircrafts.

View attachment 661744

View attachment 661743

Here are the X-Wing Titan and the UCAV Archangel flying together. In-game they're called Pegasus Transport and Phoenix Fighter/Bomber respectively.

View attachment 661745

This is the FOAS-1 UCAV, which in-game is named B-122 Wyvern Medium Bomber.

View attachment 661747

And I just realized that the white airplane, named Nebula Fighter, is based on a Lockheed Martin concept and not on an AvPro one. Sorry for that.

View attachment 661746

I honestly feel that referencing secondary video games in this forum is just wasting bandwidth. There is absolutely zero relevant insight to be gained from this.

Martin

 

[ILikeTanks]

What would be the maximum operational ceiling of a WIG vehicle such as the Avpro Manta or Marauder? I have seen photographs of WIG vehicles operating over water, but can they operate over land as well? Do they require open terrain? Is there any serious interest in WIG vehicles?

This looks like a type C WIG craft, and no limitations on cruising heights seems to be present. I'd say some 3000m.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On another note:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/1lp0u1w/av8_harrier_jump_jet_outfitted_with_experimental

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/1lp0u1w/av8_harrier_jump_jet_outfitted_with_experimental/

 

[DWG]

The EXINT pod reminds me of the pods trialled on the Barracuda for carrying 4 paratroops. Though apparently even people up for jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft found the pods too stressful to be viable. I'm really not sure the EXINT pod improves on the matter.

 

[Martes]

Found them in my image collection. I do not know the source, but they present a curious if semi-coherent force composition concept, both air and naval, with some very surprising purchases.

Posting them here into Alternate History section, because, well, they would've made an interesting alternative Royal Armed Forces.

Does anyone know what kind of program this was, and how official?

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't know how official it was but I seem to recall reading the Typhoon was fully controllable at 90 knots with thrust vectoring, which meant to could land on a carrier without the controlled crash.

 

[Martes]

What caught my attention, among other things here, is the sheer scale of the thing.

Two type of carriers (trimaran and single-hull), very strange assault ships, a range of foreign purchases (F-111, F/A-18, Rafale (?!) ), VSTOL attack fighters, and even a supersonic strategic bomber, autonomous and wingman drones, etc. Like a full set for every kind of operation.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Were those Canard Rotor-Wing images AvPro, or from someone else?

One picture I have saved IDs it as an MDD concept.

 

[DWG]

I don't know how official it was but I seem to recall reading the Typhoon was fully controllable at 90 knots with thrust vectoring, which meant to could land on a carrier without the controlled crash.

There was certainly discussion by BAE Systems that a STOBAR Typhoon could be feasible, the idea being to closely couple deck movement and approach speed so that forces on the landing gear were minimised, limiting the rework needed to produce a carrier capable aircraft. I don't recall if thrust-vectoring was part of that or not.

 

[DWG]

What caught my attention, among other things here, is the sheer scale of the thing.

Two type of carriers (trimaran and single-hull), very strange assault ships, a range of foreign purchases (F-111, F/A-18, Rafale (?!) ), VSTOL attack fighters, and even a supersonic strategic bomber, autonomous and wingman drones, etc. Like a full set for every kind of operation.

Lots of different alternatives, rather than one single coherent programme. AvPro just threw out ideas, mostly around FOAS (Future Offensive Aircraft System), which was itself open to multiple alternatives - manned, unmanned, stand-in, stand-off, and so on. Apparently in the hope that if they threw out enough options then one of them might stick.

 

[Martes]

There was certainly discussion by BAE Systems that a STOBAR Typhoon could be feasible

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/naval-eurofighter-typhoon-projects.11947/

Lots of different alternatives, rather than one single coherent programme. AvPro just threw out ideas, mostly around FOAS (Future Offensive Aircraft System), which was itself open to multiple alternatives - manned, unmanned, stand-in, stand-off, and so on. Apparently in the hope that if they threw out enough options then one of them might stick.

Yes, I see that now. Only yesterday, when I found those images, I interpreted them as a single "never mind the treasury" rearmament program, and it did look good that way. Some things were obviously redundant, some unrealistic (trimaran carrier would have to be replaced with a conventional, surely), but overall it made sense.

And I kind of liked the smaller carrier design - sans the very awkward ski-jump, it looks rather stylish.