• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

BAE EAP

danielgrimes

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I've searched high and low for 3view diagrams of the EAP - can anyone help?

many thanks
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,044
Reaction score
870
I have 3-page scale drawings from Aviation News somewhere, but need to search.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,460
Reaction score
191
I have a 5-view 1:96 scale drawing at "British Aerospace EAP: an aeroguide special by Bill Gunston. Ed Linewrights". If you're interested, I can email it to you.

Greetings from a mac user,

Antonio
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
931
That's, would I could offer :
- From AirInternational
- From Green, "Aircraft of the World 1987/88"
- From K.Mason, "The British Fighter since 1912"
 

Attachments

  • BAe EAP.jpg
    BAe EAP.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 604
  • EAP_02.JPG
    EAP_02.JPG
    22.7 KB · Views: 552
  • EAP_01.JPG
    EAP_01.JPG
    25.3 KB · Views: 631

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,382
Thought I had a 3 view in an EAP brochure but it turned out to be a low detail painted one. Sorry.
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
931
Just a silly question : How near EAP already was to a service aircraft ? I can't help the
feeling, that further development of the EAP into a pure british combat aircraft (as Rafale
is still pure french !) would have cost the british taxpayer less, than the protracted history
of the Typhoon (EAP was solely financed by GB, i think ?)

Of course, hindsight is always easy .. ::)
 

Matej

Multiuniversal creator
Joined
Feb 13, 2006
Messages
2,616
Reaction score
116
Website
www.hitechweb.genezis.eu
As I understand it, building the flying platform is the most "simple" thing. Cost growing and delaying of the schedule usually happens during the system/weapons/avionics integration, perfection of the aerodynamics/shape, preparing of the serial production... It means everything *after* the flying of the prototype.
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
The issue in the digital age is galloping obsolescence of software - like Games, if it exists it's out-of-date. Some kit can evolve with field updates, others must be factory-integrated. UK's first experience of all this was on the flight test programme for (to be) Tornado IDS. First avionics prototype (No.4 to fly) was designed/built around an equipment bay housing a Main Computer of 32K capacity (I joke not). Evident need for 40K (ditto!) involved bay re-build to deal with ambient temperature and vibration consequences. More time, more money.
 

doolyii

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
How about this one ? got it from old UK book.
 

Attachments

  • EAP_3view.jpg
    EAP_3view.jpg
    160.2 KB · Views: 577

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
931
"The issue in the digital age is galloping obsolescence of software"

Apart from problems, as alertken mentioned (rebuilding the avionics bay) the fact, that
a very large part of the systems strength lies in its software, could be seen as a chance,
I think. The integration of new capabilities or systems ist just depending on software update
(although this might not prove to be cheaper, than changing hardware !).
And for politicians : Getting an aircraft cheaper, than other nations, needs no more, than not
ordering the latest software. For all people, just looking from the outside, the differences aren't
recognisable at all ! Just look at the german Eurofighters and compare them to the british .. ;D
 

CammNut

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
5
Jemiba said:
Just a silly question : How near EAP already was to a service aircraft ?

EAP has its origins in an aircraft that was designed to go into the production, in theory at least - the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA). This was a British-Italian-German industrial proposal for a post-Panavia Tornado programme. It owed a lot to BAe's P.110 studies, I think. The plan was for BAe, Aeritalia and MBB to build an aerodynamic and structural demonstrator to kick-start a tri-national development programme.

MBB was to provide the aft fuselage, but Germany pulled out and a Tornado aft fuselage had to be substituted for the original twin-fin design - hence the slightly bodged-up appearance of the EAP. All this did not address the weapon system. I think the plan was to build off the Sea Harrier's Ferranti Blue Vixen radar. There was an effort to create a UK-only fighter program around the ACA design, but that came to naught.

EAP would never have made a fighter, but I feel it doesn't get the respect it deserves as the X-version - maybe arguably Y-version - of what became the Eurofighter
 

doolyii

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Yea...UK version vs. French Rafale (ACX)...
http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html
Dr. Kopp prefers F-22 somewhat.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,382
CammNut said:
EAP has its origins in an aircraft that was designed to go into the production, in theory at least - the Agile Combat Aircraft (ACA). This was a British-Italian-German industrial proposal for a post-Panavia Tornado programme. It owed a lot to BAe's P.110 studies, I think. The plan was for BAe, Aeritalia and MBB to build an aerodynamic and structural demonstrator to kick-start a tri-national development programme.

The very first version of P.110 was, I believe, instigated as a private venture fighter aimed at Saudi Arabia taking the avionics systems and RB.199 engines of the Tornado ADV and putting them in a new airframe. So the first version used Foxhunter radar and was AA only.

By February 1982 £9 million had been spent on P.110 by BAE alone and two versions were being planned, P110A using Foxhunter, with 4 prototypes from autumn 1985 onwards. P110S would use Blue Falcon and two Marconi FLIRs of different angular coverage, and was aimed at filling RAF requirements for a dual role fighter with night attack capability.

Some versions of the P.110 used higher thrust RB199 67R engines.

By June 1982 BAe were proposing P.110 to meet AST 403. 350 were expected to be sold export to third world countries (primarily Middle East) and 500 in Europe; 150 UK, 200 Germany, 150 Italy. It used the standard RB 199 Mk 103 engine and 60 to 75 percent comon avionics with Tornado, including the Foxhunter radar. BAe touted extensive use of Carbon fibre and the canard design, along with an advanced cockpit with MFDs and digital fly-by-wire. A laser ranger/marked target seeker was to be fitted.

Takeoff run was 300m, landing run 480m, with maximum speeds of Mach 1.2 at sea level, Mach 2.1 at height. P.110 met all SEP and STR requirement of AST 403 except the Mach 0.9, 20,000ft case due to shortcomings of the relatively high BPR engine. 9 % shorter acceleration time than AST 403 was predicted, and a 240nm combat radius with 6 BL755 and 2 SRAAM, 319nm with external fuel. 101 mins loiter at 180nm with 4 sraam and external fuel was possible versus 45min required in AST.

By August 1982 the P.110 design was revised with ventral intakes as per German-influenced multinational ACA studies with fixed multishock intakes improving performance at Mach 1.8 - Mach 2.2. A new staggered array of MRAAMs allowed skyflash or AMRAAM carriage. Reduced size which allowed standard RB.199 103 now not higher thrust RB199 67R as earlier. Internal fuel was reduced from 5000kg to 4000kg with provision for a conformal fuel tank underfuselage. Wing area was increased 20%.

By this time P.110 had become the EAP or, to give it its original full title, "Experimental Aircraft Programme for the Agile Combat Aircraft". It wasn't going to be the Eurofighter but would test core technologies to feed into it.

CammNut said:
MBB was to provide the aft fuselage, but Germany pulled out and a Tornado aft fuselage had to be substituted for the original twin-fin design - hence the slightly bodged-up appearance of the EAP. All this did not address the weapon system. I think the plan was to build off the Sea Harrier's Ferranti Blue Vixen radar. There was an effort to create a UK-only fighter program around the ACA design, but that came to naught.

EAP would never have made a fighter, but I feel it doesn't get the respect it deserves as the X-version - maybe arguably Y-version - of what became the Eurofighter
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,382
Nice wind tunnel model of EAP with wingtip AAM launchers

http://www.eu-ewa.aero/index.php?id=37
 

Attachments

  • 80b59e2159.jpg
    80b59e2159.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 506

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
If the British and the French (most notably Dassault) had not been stubborn doing their own national thing in this matter, but instead had joined forces in a truly euro-minded approach, they might have spawned a greater and more marketable fighter years than the Typhoon, and perhaps gained a whole decade doing so. The Rafale is one of the most elegant fighters ever to grace our skies (like Mr. Dassault's designs usually were), but commercially speaking it is not profitable to produce such an expensive aircraft for a company like Dassault (which consequently was taken over by arch-rival Aerospatiale).
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
And ditto for Tornado/Mirage 4000/2000. Early consortia discussions for both included France, whose withdrawals were (your choice:) a) because the Specs diverged from her perceptions of need, or b) because other Team Members declined a gallic baseline Study Configuration.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
719
Reaction score
419
Stargazer2006 said:
If the British and the French (most notably Dassault) had not been stubborn doing their own national thing in this matter, but instead had joined forces in a truly euro-minded approach, they might have spawned a greater and more marketable fighter years than the Typhoon, and perhaps gained a whole decade doing so.

There's a lot more to it than simply stubbornness. France required a carrier-based aircraft, which meant something smaller than was preferred by the other countries, who weren't enamoured of working with Dassault anyway as Dassault was demanding complete design leadership and the use of the M88. As for delivering a decade earlier, that ignores the whole post-German Reunification shenanigans with Chancellor Helmut Kohl promising to cancel the aircraft and Defence Minister Volker Ruehe (trying to boost himself into Kohl's seat) forcing major delays and studies on fundamental redesigns of an aircraft that was almost ready to fly.

it is not profitable to produce such an expensive aircraft for a company like Dassault (which consequently was taken over by arch-rival Aerospatiale).

The French government had 46.75% of Dassault, which it transferring into Aerospatiale which then merged into EADS. Dassault remains independent with EADS as the second largest shareholder after Dassault Group.
 

danielgrimes

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
57
Reaction score
0
I think the SEPECAT incident is still a sore point. The two plane deal for the Jaguar ( that Britain didn't want) and for the AFVG (that France didn't want) was unilaterally terminated by France after they got their Jaguar. This put Britain's Canberra/TSR2 replacement back another decade!!
 

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
7
danielgrimes said:
Hi,

I've searched high and low for 3view diagrams of the EAP - can anyone help?

many thanks

Is this the plane sometimes referred to as the "British Gripen"? It does have some similarities, but also a few differences.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,358
Reaction score
3,382
No - the British Gripen was the P.106B




See Eurofighter Typhoon Projects
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
An EAP spin-off project was the BAE Systems P112C-6:

The UK's Integrated Flight and Propulsion Control System (IFPCS) Technical Demonstration Programme is a joint UK MoD / Industry-funded research effort, which has mainly focused on investigating aircraft control and system architectures to meet the challenges associated with future STOVL aircraft.

The project has utilised the P112C-6 canard-delta aircraft configuration (shown below), which is largely based on BAE SYSTEMS' experience with the EAP aircraft. The main configuration differences are that the P1 12C-6 has side intakes and is a close-coupled canard-delta, as opposed to the chin intake and long-coupled canard-delta of the EAP aircraft.

The project powerplant is the Rolls-Royce RB571-10 direct-lift engine concept, which has two distinct modes of operation:
  • Flight mode - in which the lift system is disabled and the engine operates as a conventional turbo-fan as shown below.
  • Lift mode - in which the main core flow is directed through two rear-mounted vectoring nozzles and a proportion of the by-pass air is dueted through to a front lift nozzle. This provides a three-poster remotely unaugmented lift system.

Source: Thrust Vector Control and Visualisation for Stovl Aircraft (BAE Systems, 2000)
 

Attachments

  • P112C-6 General Arrangement.gif
    P112C-6 General Arrangement.gif
    55.1 KB · Views: 362
  • P112C-6 Lift System Geometry.gif
    P112C-6 Lift System Geometry.gif
    30.7 KB · Views: 340

Similar threads

Top