- Oct 5, 2006
- Reaction score
The BAC P.97 looks like a Jaguar.
The attached comes from a file in the National Archives at Kew and shows the list of 28 designs that were submitted to Phase I of the AST.403 competition. Doing the advertising bit, a good number of these will feature in the revised British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters, which has just been delivered to the publisher.
The AST.403 Phase II studies by the way essentially took the most favoured half dozen of these designs with the intention of assessing them in much greater depth, although there were some changes in due course.
Hope you find this of interest.
Very best wishes, Tony.
an Aeritalia pre-Eurofighter study.
I guess in basic layout they're similar but almost every country with an aerospace industry was investigating the canard, delta wing, and ventral inlet configuration at the time. However, this predates the USSR MFI, since this is from 1982 so it would be more correct to say the MFI looks like it may have referenced this research. Also, it should be noted that the MFI was a much larger aircraft.zen said:Is it me or doestate that look a bit like the USSR's MFI ?
Thanks zeroc.zeroc said:From Interconair, 1980.
As far as I remember, the two tails Rafale was not choosen because of "aeroelastic contraints" that it could not overcome.Archibald said:There was clearly two different Dassault designs. One is a direct offspring of the Mirage 4000, with different air intakes closer from the future Rafale.
The other is the intriguing pre- Rafale concept with the two tails fixed mid-way of a delta wing (a radical design, the definitive ACX had a single tail like the 4000)
Grey Havoc said:Via AS.12 over at our sister site What If Modelers: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1988/1988 - 0208.PDF
I have a vague recollection of doing the drag analysis for this.....and thereafter most probably the mission and flight performance sums. Also a vague recollection of the full scale mock-up....was it just a half model.....in the hangar at a time when we had a proliferation of mock-ups. P103 was quite a complex beast....and led to stuff like RALS etc. Just a passing phase as my main task was P106.
I joined Warton in 79 following a stint in Aero Projects and SAD at RAE where I was doing multivariate optimisation of fast jets...the first job was joining Brian Young's team for the Anglo German ECF where eight of us and eight of the best of MBB under Martin Friemer hammered out the canard delta that ultimately became Typhoon. I was returned to Roy Boot's FPO and soon became engaged with LCA projects...mostly the sizing and performance optimisation of the P106 where Dave Whalley led the drawing side. My boss, John Platt, pulled us together, especially on the propulsion side, and was the link to the higher paid help. I always preferred P106....80% of ECF/ECA/P110/ACA for 60% of the cost. There was a lot of international interest....and a very marked similarity to the JAS.39 project.
Those intakes....we were forever playing with different schemes. It would generally end up as a Friday afternoon project where Dave and I would cut up sections, paste them onto card and build a 3D eggbox which would then be filled in with Plasticine. Then we would very proudly show it to John Platt....and soon after start all over again. Towards the end (I left in '84') we developed the optimiser software to spit out 3D wireframes which invariably brought on derision (in a nice way) from Dave. He was a superb draftsman with a mass of experience.
I’ve discussed this before, it’s not at all weird. MBB worked with McDonnell-Douglas on advanced fighter concepts while Dornier worked with Northrop.This report displayed before by dear Blackkite,
but so weird,the MBB design maybe associated with McDonnell-Douglas ?,it very close to
AFTI concept ?.
Super Fighters at Warton 1948-1972
Tony Wilson – Heritage Department, BAE Systems Warton
19 April 2016
P103. Although I was in Roy Boot's FPO, I was not on the P103 design team so can't really comment on it except that at one point I was asked to do the drag analysis and then the mission and point performance calculations. The supersonic drag analysis involved developing cross -sectional area plots resolved according to the Mach number and, in this case, there was magic involved in the way I dealt with the nacelles and associated stream tubes. I think this was also an opportunity to test several alternative drag models. In fact I was a great believer in applying as many methods as possible, particularly when the configuration deviated from conventional since that way would highlight possibly suspect methodologies. At the time it was the thing to hand calc these things and if the modelling was within 5 or 10% you knew you were ok. Oh, the days spent planimetering and punching numbers into the reverse Polish notation calculator.....and when all was ok, setting up the JCL, purging the company mainframe and running the calcs overnight. Later, and when they made the full size mock-up there was only enough room in the shed for a one-winged wonder. I never saw the nacelle tilt.