- 1 April 2006
- Reaction score
Northrop 1978 Advanced Research Configuration. Two last pics show upper munitions carriage studies.
Northrop RALS configuration.
Nope, the blown wing and canard system of the XFV-12A was eariler than the RALS concept. RALS might well have worked, but the system used on the XFV-12A clearly lost something between test fiacilities and full-up configuration. I do remember people from Rockwell visiting P&W's West Palm Beach facility in 1974 (since all JTF22 (F100/F401) engineering was consolidated there) to get help on trying to improve efficiencies in the system, not that they had much success.XB-70 Guy said:Was the Northrop RALS Northrop's version of the Rockwell XFV-12A?
Well, the ejector concept has shown itself rather poorly in the XV-4A (to be replaced by a battery of J85 engines in the XV-4B) and in the XFV-12A. RALS (or for those of a somewhat outre' turn, "Bleed and Burn") is Remote Augmented Lift System which ducts bleed air to a remote combustor and nozzle to generate lift at a remove from the main engine in order to increase the total vtol thrust and balance the aircraft; the problem is that it's a very "thirsty" way of doing so. In my own personal opinion, the tandem fan concept that RR came up with and which Vought looked at extensively is, despite some of the mechanical problems, one of the better alternate approaches. One could argue that the F-35's shaft-driven lift fan is a specialized adaptation of this concept. I thik either this or the 3- or 4-poster versions of the basic Harrier concept are the best approaches for combat aircraft. For larger aircraft like cargo aircraft, things get a bit more problematical and I'm not sure we've found the best solution there.JazzTime said:Excuse me... In your opinion... - all these ideas are deadlock road on a way of development VSTOL?