 |
Contents Listing - Articles & Features in this issue
FEATURES:
THOROUGHBRED HUNTER
THE MACH 3 RIDE OF THE VALKYRIE
FROM WESTMINSTER TO WEST RAYNHAM
RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT...FIDDLER
LIGHTPLANE DIRECTORY - PART
2 POWER FOR LIGHTPLANES
... SO YOU WANT TO BUILD AN AEROPLANE
TOP BRASS CHECKOUT
MARC BIRKIGT
FOREMOST WITH FOUR CANNON
REGULARS:
NEWS IN BRIEF
MISSILES AND ROCKETRY
ON THE CIVIL SIDE
MODEL TALK
FACTS BY REQUEST
AVIATION LIBRARY
Article Snippets
WHITHER AD0-12P
For some months past certain doubts have come to be expressed as to the potential value of vertical take-off capabilities in military aircraft. In France the cost of the production Mirage IIIV seems to have removed the economic gilt from the technical gingerbread. In Germany dependence upon British engines has been cited as being only a temporary, yet costly, expedient, widely regarded as politically unsatisfactory. The future of Italy’s VTO aspirations, also reliant upon British engines, in turn are likely to be influenced by the policies of Germany and France. Britain, on the other hand, while proclaiming to the World her leadership in V/STOL technology, steadfastly refrains from doing anything that might be construed as maintaining this lead. There have even been reports that NATO commanders are attempting to resurrect the Hawker Siddeley 1154 of the form in which it won the BMR-3 competition of 1961. It seems astonishing that any great powers of persuasion are required at all in view of the British Government’s published support for the project!
And while tire European doldrums seem undecided as to whether to blow vertically or not, America has quietly pursued an independent line of reasoning. All avenues have been explored; tilting wings, tilting engines, tail sitters, fans in wings and the other technical probes have all been allotted adequate funds for research. Front time to time, American companies have signed non-committal agreements with European manufacturers so that at least they need not be left behind in the event of a foreign development finding widespread military favour. Let us not forget that much of the funding of British VTO powerplants has been of American origin and this, one would suppose, entitles all the relevant technology to be made available to, say, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney.
A certain amount is known about erstwhile American operational VTO projects and it comes as no surprise to learn that parametric study contracts were raised with four U.S. manufacturers in 1963 to investigate military VTO potentialities. While a similar British study was being undertaken by a “scientific group” under Sir Solly Zuckerman at the Ministry of Defence (the conclusions of which are likely to remain Secret), the Americans have come out firmly and, apparently, unanimously in favour of tactical (manned) aircraft with VTO ability.
Generically termed ADO-12, the contract has now moved on to the detail design stage and appears to be applicable to the companies of Republic and Boeing —the other two, Curtiss-Wright and Northrop, not being concerned at this stage. The requirement has been issued for the U.S. Air Force—and should not be confused with Army support requirements —it being clear that a principal role will be that of forward air defence. Though obviously little can be deduced at this early stage of development, it appears that designs are being studied both in the 18,000 lb. (8 160 kg) and 30,000 lb. (13 600 kg) A.U.W. regimes, approximating to those of the P.1127 and the 1154. Might one suggest that great minds think alike?
Apropos of the earlier reference to American co-signature with European manufacturers, it may be significant to recall that at the time of NBMR-3, Republic signed with Hawker Siddeley (through Fokker) in respect of the 1154, while Boeing signed with GAMD/BAC— presumably relating to the Mirage IIIV.
For some months past certain doubts have come to be expressed as to the potential value of vertical take-off capabilities in military aircraft. In France the cost of the production Mirage IIIV seems to have removed the economic gilt from the technical gingerbread. In Germany dependence upon British engines has been cited as being only a temporary, yet costly, expedient, widely regarded as politically unsatisfactory. The future of Italy’s VTO aspirations, also reliant upon British engines, in turn are likely to be influenced by the policies of Germany and France. Britain, on the other hand, while proclaiming to the World her leadership in V/STOL technology, steadfastly refrains from doing anything that might be construed as maintaining this lead. There have even been reports that NATO commanders are attempting to resurrect the Hawker Siddeley 1154 of the form in which it won the BMR-3 competition of 1961. It seems astonishing that any great powers of persuasion are required at all in view of the British Government’s published support for the project!
And while tire European doldrums seem undecided as to whether to blow vertically or not, America has quietly pursued an independent line of reasoning. All avenues have been explored; tilting wings, tilting engines, tail sitters, fans in wings and the other technical probes have all been allotted adequate funds for research. Front time to time, American companies have signed non-committal agreements with European manufacturers so that at least they need not be left behind in the event of a foreign development finding widespread military favour. Let us not forget that much of the funding of British VTO powerplants has been of American origin and this, one would suppose, entitles all the relevant technology to be made available to, say, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney.
A certain amount is known about erstwhile American operational VTO projects and it comes as no surprise to learn that parametric study contracts were raised with four U.S. manufacturers in 1963 to investigate military VTO potentialities. While a similar British study was being undertaken by a “scientific group” under Sir Solly Zuckerman at the Ministry of Defence (the conclusions of which are likely to remain Secret), the Americans have come out firmly and, apparently, unanimously in favour of tactical (manned) aircraft with VTO ability.
Generically termed ADO-12, the contract has now moved on to the detail design stage and appears to be applicable to the companies of Republic and Boeing —the other two, Curtiss-Wright and Northrop, not being concerned at this stage. The requirement has been issued for the U.S. Air Force—and should not be confused with Army support requirements —it being clear that a principal role will be that of forward air defence. Though obviously little can be deduced at this early stage of development, it appears that designs are being studied both in the 18,000 lb. (8 160 kg) and 30,000 lb. (13 600 kg) A.U.W. regimes, approximating to those of the P.1127 and the 1154. Might one suggest that great minds think alike?
Apropos of the earlier reference to American co-signature with European manufacturers, it may be significant to recall that at the time of NBMR-3, Republic signed with Hawker Siddeley (through Fokker) in respect of the 1154, while Boeing signed with GAMD/BAC— presumably relating to the Mirage IIIV.
