Evolution of the Eurofighter Typhoon: TKF-90, AST 396, AST.403 and more

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
2,862
On the BAe P103 given that the Bell XF109 and VJ101C had shown the risks of this tilt engine approach why did BAe think it was workable?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shedofdread

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
512
Reaction score
214
On the BAe P103 given that the Bell XF109 and VJ101C had shiwn the risks of this tilt engine approach why did BAe think it was workable?
IIRC, they weren't using it to achieve VTOL but more an extreme STOL so *maybe* some of the issues wouldn't be as extreme. Not really sure why but the P.103 has always appealed to me. Maybe I just like a challenge......
 

Bies

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What was the reason behind resignation from double vertical stabilizers in Eurofighter?

Many EF prototypes had double stabilizers. And final EF has somewhat restricted high AoA regime due to having single vertical stab.
Plus canted stabs will give smaller radar reflection from the side.

It was due to financial reasons or there was some aerodynamics behind this decision?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,949
This decision was first explored on the ACA / EAP.

Warton (BAE) did extensive trade studies on one versus two tails in 1982 and felt the performance benefit to the ACA configuration was minimal and outweighed by additional weight and compexity. High alpha capability was an MBB obsession and not a major concern for BAE or the RAF.

For EAP the initial plan was MBB doing centre fuselage and vertical tails, and AIT the rear fuselage, but then BAE had to take these over when the other partner nations cut funding and went with largely Tornado rear fuselage including a single Tornado fin. It worked well enough on EAP.

When EFA design was finalised, two versus one tails was re-examined again, but the same conclusion was reached as before. For the given requirements, low drag and weight and adequate stability was the right solution.
 
Last edited:

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
106
Reaction score
181
Hey! I don’t know if anyone knows, but I’m really interested in the 1986 farnborough mock up. It seems close to the final design, anyone know how it differs, does anyone have a three view? I’ve heard it might have been the P.120 but I’m not sure that’s the case. Since the EAP only first flew a month before and provided vital test data I assume it must have been revised in someway, but how?
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
106
Reaction score
181
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqOu0JuH_-g

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4oE2pc4hi-I&t=2107s

Some video of the 1986 mock up

The timing seems very odd generally from what I’ve seen is that you have a mock up either when your about to cut metal or about to sell someone on a configuration. Generally it’s three years or so from mock up to final. Yet I don’t think physical work on the eurofighter started till 1989, prototype done in early 1992 and almost two years before the first fight (which is also kinda odd) 1986-1989 seems like kind of a black hole.


also a web archive of an old article that had a dead link https://web.archive.org/web/2014052...ch='Bae P 120'&scrollbar=0&page=1&view=FitH,0
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
7,949
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqOu0JuH_-g

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4oE2pc4hi-I&t=2107s

Some video of the 1986 mock up

The timing seems very odd generally from what I’ve seen is that you have a mock up either when your about to cut metal or about to sell someone on a configuration. Generally it’s three years or so from mock up to final. Yet I don’t think physical work on the eurofighter started till 1989, prototype done in early 1992 and almost two years before the first fight (which is also kinda odd) 1986-1989 seems like kind of a black hole.


also a web archive of an old article that had a dead link https://web.archive.org/web/20140520093941if_/http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1985/1985 - 1541.PDF#navpanes=0&search='Bae P 120'&scrollbar=0&page=1&view=FitH,0
I'm not really understanding your argument.

Mockups are made for various reasons at various times. Sometimes they are highly classified at the time, and presented only to the customer Air Force and never displayed in public. The EFA mockup in 1986 was a sales tool. EFA was going in circles, BAE in particular were trying to get something going. EFA mockup in 1986 showed roughly the then-current EFA config - I have an official drawing from May 1986 which exactly corresponds with this painting:


EFA May 1986.jpg


Its a stepping stone between EAP (originally "Experimental Aircraft for the Agile Combat Aircraft") and the later EFA configuration with "smiling" intake. It wasn't until contract award in November 1988 that any serious work started happening.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,301
Reaction score
6,292
High alpha capability was an MBB obsession

... and they certainly went to the deep end of it with X-31 - itself based on a rejected EFA design.
 

F-2

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
106
Reaction score
181
[edited - no links to Key Publishing publications except official website please - Admin]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Top