VTOL Aircraft The Story of Vertical Flight

100 Pages • 23,327 Words • PDF • 25.1 MB
Uploaded at 2021-09-24 06:05

This document was submitted by our user and they confirm that they have the consent to share it. Assuming that you are writer or own the copyright of this document, report to us by using this DMCA report button.


VTOL AIRCRAFT The story of vertical flight

ING

INCLUD

EXCLUSIVE PROFILES AND FASCINATING PHOTOS AA30_pp 1.indd 1

ISSUE 30 £7.95

www.keypublishing.com

Flying Bedstead Pogo Rotodyne Harrier Osprey… plus many more!

30/01/2017 12:38

NE

W

CELEBRATING BRITAIN’S GREATEST WARTIME BOMBER

This 100-page special publication from the team behind FlyPast magazine pays tribute to all who built, maintained and flew Lancasters, past and present. Using extensive archive images, renowned aviation writers and researchers present an incredible salute to an incredible aircraft. FEATURES INCLUDE: A tribute to the man who designed the Lancaster, Roy Chadwick How and where Lancasters were built From the disaster of the Manchester to the triumph of the Lancaster Potted histories of 75 Lancasters, from the earliest to the survivors Wartime operations and crew exploits Test-beds and trials airframes Legacy, the Lancaster ‘family’, the York and Lancastrian transports, the Lincoln and the Shackleton And much more! A N E W S P E C I A L P U B L I C AT I O N F R O M K E Y P U B L I S H I N G

AVAILABLE NOW FROM

AND ALL LEADING NEWSAGENTS

ALTERNATIVELY, ORDER DIRECT

PLUS FREE

P&P *

*Free 2nd class P&P on all UK & BFPO orders. Overseas charges apply.

125/17

Free P&P* when you order online at OR www.keypublishing.com/shop

Call UK: 01780 480404 Overseas: +44 1780 480404 Monday to Friday 9am-5:30pm

S U B S C R I B E R S C A L L F O R Y O U R £ 1. 0 0 D I S C O U N T ! 125 Lancaster SA4.indd 61

31/01/2017 11:53

CONTENTS

VTOL aircraft

3

The story of vertical flight

4

INTRODUCTION

UNITED KINGDOM

CANADA

34

FAIREY FD1

6

AVRO AVROCAR

36

FLYING BEDSTEAD

8

CANADAIR CL-84 DYNAVERT

38

SHORT SC1

41

FAIREY ROTODYNE

46

HAWKER P1127/KESTREL

48

HAWKER SIDDELEY HARRIER

54

BAE SEA HARRIER

56

BAE/MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HARRIER II

FRANCE 14

SNECMA COLÉOPTÈRE

16

DASSAULT MIRAGE IIIV GERMANY

18

BACHEM BA 349 NATTER

19

EWR SÜD VJ-101C

21 24

UNITED STATES

DORNIER DO 31

61

LOCKHEED XFV-1

VFW VAK-191B

64

CONVAIR XFY-1 POGO

68

BELL ATV

69

BELL XV-3

70

RYAN X-13 VERTIJET

72

BELL X-14

72

DOAK VZ-4

SOVIET UNION 26

YAKOVLEV YAK-36 ‘FREEHAND’

28

YAKOVLEV YAK-38 ‘FORGER’

32

YAKOVLEV YAK-41/141 ‘FREESTYLE’

AVIATION ARCHIVE SERIES ‘VTOL Aircraft’ is No 30 in the Aviation Archive collection. As ever, the series features unparalleled photographic coverage, including many exclusive and rare shots. The words and photographs are complemented by ‘period’ cutaways from the talented pens of the ‘Flight’ and ‘Aeroplane’ artists of the era, together with exclusive aircraft profiles.

73

HILLER X-18

74

LOCKHEED XV-4 HUMMINGBIRD

77

RYAN XV-5 VERTIFAN

78

LTV XC-142A

81

BELL X-22

83

BELL XV-15

84

ROCKWELL XFV-12A

86

BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

92

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35B JSF

Aviation Archive Series

VTOL aircraft: The story of vertical flight • Author: Denis J. Calvert • Editor: Allan Burney • Design: Key Studio • Publisher and Managing Director: Adrian Cox • Executive Chairman: Richard Cox • Commercial Director: Ann Saundry • Group Editor: Nigel Price • Distribution: Seymour Distribution Ltd +44 (0)20 7429 4000 • Printing: Warners (Midlands) PLC, The Maltings, Manor Lane, Bourne, Lincs PE10 9PH. All rights reserved. The entire content of Aviation Archive is © Key Publishing 2017. Reproduction in whole or in part and in any form whatsoever is strictly prohibited without the prior permission of the Publisher. We are unable to guarantee the bona fides of any of our advertisers. Readers are strongly recommended to take their own precautions before parting with any information or item of value, including, but not limited to, money, manuscripts, photographs or personal information in response to any advertisements within this publication. Published by Key Publishing Ltd, PO Box 100, Stamford, Lincs PE19 1XQ. Tel: +44 (0) 1780 755131. Fax: +44 (0) 1780 757261. Website: www.keypublishing.com ISBN: 9781910415870

AA30_pp 3.indd 3

30/01/2017 12:45

INTRODUCTION

4

VTOL aircraft

The story of vertical flight

T

he concept of being able to take off vertically and then switch to winged forward flight has long been the holy grail of aircraft design, but the technological challenges, laws of physics and economics have proved stubborn obstacles to overcome. Needless to say, there have been many ingenious attempts to solve the problems and one can only admire the tenacity and imagination of the designers. In the early years, lack of technology hindered their efforts, and it was only after advances driven by World War 2 that Vertical Take-Off and Landing (or VTOL as it became known) truly became a reality. The emerging postwar years were a golden era for innovation and experimentation, and solutions to the ‘vertical’ conundrum took many paths and forms. Some were inspired, some were flawed, while others were just gloriously eccentric. There were still more failures than successes, but out of the emerging jet technology came one revolutionary idea that began to show more promise than the rest…vectored thrust. Fifty and more years after its first flight, the Hawker Harrier remains the only Vertical/ Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL) fighter

to have served totally successfully with any of the world’s air forces. Manufacturers in several countries have tried to emulate this success, but most have failed. It would be simplistic to say that Hawker got it right while the rest got it wrong. Rather, other exotic V/STOL fighter prototypes were designed and flown, but their complexity, their heavy maintenance demands or their tricky flying characteristics failed to appeal to the intended customers. The second V/STOL fighter design to enter service was the Soviet Union’s Yak-38. This three-engined fighter did fly operationally with the Soviet Navy aboard ‘Kiev’ class aircraft carriers in the late 1970s, but it had been completely retired by 1991. Few service pilots really mastered the Yak-38, and its handling characteristics required a great deal of skill on their part. Its successor, the radar-equipped and supersonic Yak-41, never made it to production, with government funding being removed in late 1991. As a result, V/STOL activity in the Soviet Union and Russia came to a complete halt, although the first prototype Yak-41 did make an appearance at the 1992 Farnborough International air show in an unsuccessful attempt to drum up Western interest in a possible collaborative V/STOL venture.

VTOL, V/STOL or STOVL. What’s the difference? To qualify for inclusion in this issue of ‘Aviation Archive’, an aircraft should be capable of taking off and landing vertically, but not be a pure rotorcraft (helicopter). Those that qualify can fairly be labelled VTOL designs. Some of the aircraft included within these pages have no option, because of their geometry, but to take off vertically, with the American tail-sitters (Lockheed XFV-1, Convair XFY-1) of the early 1950s and the ramp-launched Bachem Natter of World War 2 being good examples. For them, the only way was indeed ‘up’. Many other designs, though, were relatively conventional and featured ‘normal’ undercarriages – aircraft like the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. These were fully capable of VTOL operation, but could carry a much greater fuel and weapons load given the luxury of a short take-off run, to gain the added advantage of aerodynamic lift. When fuel had been burned off and weapons expended, they could return to base and land vertically. Or, indeed, conventionally. These are described as V/STOL (or VSTOL) types, a label Hawker Siddeley (and later BAe) always applied to the Harrier. A final variation is STOVL – Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing. This is the label that Lockheed Martin applies to its F-35B; the aircraft routinely takes off using a short run (even though it could take off vertically with a lesser load), and recovers to land vertically.

• AA30_pp 4-5.indd 4

The most recent V/STOL fighter jet to enter service is the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) or, in the UK, the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA). This programme has seen significant technical challenges, groundings, redesign, delays, public relations disasters (such as its non-appearance at Farnborough 2014) and cost overruns. The F-35 programme comprises three basically similar aircraft – the conventional take-off F-35A, the STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) F-35B and the conventional, carrier-based F-35C. The F-35B, the variant designed to the needs of the US Marine Corps but also being purchased by the RAF and Royal Navy, is technically the most challenging. As to whether the F-35B will prove truly successful in service, only time will tell. What is certain is that it is the first truly supersonic VTOL design to make it to front-line use, and that it is fiendishly expensive.

Vertical lift The big design question affecting all V/STOL fighters is ‘single engine – or separate lift and thrust engines?’ Each alternative has its attractions. Proponents of the single-engined approach point to the inherent simplicity of just one powerplant, which of necessity involves some system to deflect downwards the jet exhaust to permit vertical take-off and/or recovery and hovering flight. This also has serendipitous side-effects. If an aircraft is sufficiently well-endowed with thrust to permit vertical take-off, it has by definition at least a better than 1:1 thrust:weight ratio, which will guarantee a sparkling performance throughout the flight regime. And if, as in the Harrier, the jet exhaust can be deflected in wing-borne flight, it can give its pilot huge advantages in air combat, including the possibility of turning ‘square corners’. Against this, the engine is likely to be large and complex (because of the concessions necessary to deflect the thrust). Single-engined V/STOL designs also have the advantage of simplicity. Do your air force engineers really want a single-seat fighter with more engines than a B-52?

28/01/2017 08:58

INTRODUCTION

Britain’s industry developed both singleengined (the P1127/Kestrel/Harrier family) and multi-engined (the Short SC1 with separate lift and thrust engines) designs. Other countries tried far more complex concepts to give V/STOL performance. France’s Dassault produced and flew the Mirage IIIV with no less than nine engines – eight Rolls-Royce RB162s for lift and a single Pratt & Whitney turbofan for forward flight. The IIIV proved capable of vertical take-off and landing as well as Mach 2 flight, although significantly it never demonstrated all these in the same sortie. However capacious, its fuselage was filled with engines and it would likely have proved a logistical nightmare, particularly when involved in operations from an austere base (one of the claimed great advantages of V/STOL fighters). The loss of the second prototype IIIV in 1966 effectively

AA30_pp 4-5.indd 5

brought an end to the programme – and to any possibility of Mach 2 V/STOL, at least for another 40 years. The relative simplicity of the Harrier’s design approach allowed it to prosper, even as other V/STOL designs came and went. The American Rockwell XFV-12A with its unique ‘thrust augmented wing’ concept spectacularly failed to achieve vertical take-off, this despite a 30,000lb turbofan whose thrust was directed through louvres in the wing. Big, expensive cock-ups are not confined to British shores.

The world of VTOL This issue of ‘Aviation Archive’ reviews 35 main types from the six countries that have made serious attempts to produce aircraft capable of vertical take-off. Some were intended as pure prototypes or demonstrators, some were

5

intended to go into full-scale production but remained as pure prototypes or demonstrators, while just a few made it through to front-line service. Not all were small, single-seat fighters. There have been ambitious projects to produce a transport aircraft capable of taking off and landing vertically. After all, if you’ve got a squadron of V/STOL fighters operating just a few miles from the forward edge of the battle, flying from a clearing in the forest or from a beachhead, you’ll surely need a VTOL transport to keep them supplied. What is certain is that the designers involved were prepared to ‘think outside the box’ and were encouraged to bring ‘back of a fag packet’ sketches to reality. In so doing, they pushed the boundaries and brought to reality some of the wackiest aircraft ever to take to the skies. Or not, as the case may be. Denis J. Calvert

31/01/2017 12:03

6

CANADA

Avro Avrocar A vro’s Avrocar was one of the great ‘might have beens’ of post-war aviation. Had it lived up to its initial promise, it could well have been the flying saucer streaking across the night sky, constructed not by an alien civilisation but by Canadian engineers in Ontario. The Avrocar was designed in the 1950s as a research aircraft in the quest to build a ‘flying jeep’. It was powered by three J69 turbojets driving a central fan to provide initial lift for take-off, following which the craft’s aerofoil shape would generate normal aerodynamic lift for forward flight. In 1952, the Canadian government provided initial funding but dropped the project when it became too expensive. Avro offered the project to the US government and the US Army and US Air Force took it over in 1958. Each service had different requirements: the Army wanted to use it as a subsonic, all-terrain troop transport and reconnaissance craft, but the Air Force wanted a VTOL aircraft that could hover below enemy radar then zoom up to supersonic speed. Research data originally indicated that a circular wing might satisfy both requirements, and Avro built two small test vehicles to prove the concept. This strange vehicle (serial 58-7055) was rolled out at Malton, Ontario in May 1959 and made its first free hovering flight on 12 November of that year. Its test pilots all agreed that the Avrocar was unstable, underpowered and difficult to fly, one comparing the experience to ‘balancing on a beach ball’. Many efforts at improving stability and thrust followed over the coming months, but the Avrocar never got more than a few feet off the ground and remained stubbornly in ground effect. In the end, its American backers realised that the project was a technical dead end, and funding ran out in March 1961.

Avro VZ-9AV Avrocar Crew: Engines:

Wingspan: Height: Weight:

• AA30_pp 6-7.indd 6

Two 3 x Continental J69-T9 turbojets of 927lb thrust each 18ft (5.5m) 4ft 10in (1.25m) 4,620lb (2,095kg) empty

28/01/2017 09:00

AVRO AVROCAR

7

Above: The Avrocar used exhaust from turbojet engines to drive a circular ‘turborotor’, which produced thrust. By directing this thrust downward, the turborotor would create a cushion of air upon which the aircraft would float at low altitude. When the thrust was directed toward the rear, the aircraft would accelerate and gain altitude. Right: How the US Army envisaged the Avrocar would operate in service. Left: The US Army and US Air Force provided funding to the Avrocar flying saucer in the hope that the technology might pave the way for an eventual supersonic disk-shaped VTOL fighter.

Above: If the Avrocar flew more than three feet above the ground during flight trials, it displayed uncontrollable pitch and roll motions, which the Avro engineers called ‘hubcapping’. The Avrocar could only reach a maximum speed of 35mph, and all attempts to end the hubcapping failed. The project was cancelled in December 1961.

• AA30_pp 6-7.indd 7

28/01/2017 09:01

8

CANADA

Canadair CL-84 Dynavert

T

he CL-84’s experimental tilt-wing design was an attempt to produce an aircraft that would combine vertical take-off-and-landing with a fixed-wing capability. Canadair broke new ground with this aircraft and although two crashed through mechanical failure, with no loss of life, the design was considered a success. No production contracts were procured and eventually work on this promising V/STOL machine was halted. The CL-84 – Canadair never seemed to call it the ‘Dynavert’ – dates from 1963, when the company decided to go ahead to prototype stage with this tilt-wing design for a small

AA30_pp 8-13.indd 8

utility aircraft capable of V/STOL operation. It featured a box-like fuselage, a pair of 14ft propellers driven by Lycoming T53 turboshafts (the same engine used in the Bell UH-1 Huey) mounted on a high wing that swivelled through 100 degrees, and a tail rotor to trim the aircraft during transitions. The incidence of the tailplane was also coupled to that of the wing, such that it moved as the wing was tilted towards the vertical for take-off and landing. A first hovering flight was made on 7 May 1965, leading to a first transition on 17 January 1966. Flight testing went well. Canadair flew some simulated Search and Rescue (SAR) missions in 1966, and the US Army evaluated the type

Above: The Canadair CL-84 was the world’s first proven tilt-rotor aircraft, but its potential was never fulfilled. The pair of 14ft (4.3m) fourbladed propellers were driven by two 1,500hp Lycoming T53 shaft-turbines. The engines were interconnected by cross shafts, so that in the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect and both propellers would be driven by the remaining powerplant.

in January 1967 for various utility roles. Flight testing underlined a fact that all manufacturers of similar designs would understand; the CL-84 could carry twice the payload in STOL mode (with a 200ft run) when compared with pure VTOL operation.

31/01/2017 12:02

CANADAIR CL-84 DYNAVERT

9

Canadair CL-84-1 Dynavert Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant: VTOL method:

Two 47ft 4in (14.4m) 34ft 4in (10.5m) 14ft 3in (4.3m) 8,700lb (3,950kg) 14,500lb (6,580kg) 320mph (515km/h) 2 x Lycoming T53 turboshafts (1,500hp) Tilt wing with rear rotor for pitch control

This page: With Canadair chief pilot Bill Longhurst at the controls, the CL-84 prototype, CF-VTO-X, first flew in the hover on 7 May 1965. These images show the tilt-rotor in hover (left), transitional (below) and conventional (bottom) flight modes. After 305 relatively uneventful flights, on 12 September 1967 CF-VTO-X was at 3,000ft (910m) when a bearing in the propeller control system failed. Both pilot and observer successfully ejected but the prototype was lost.

The first prototype was lost on 12 September 1967 and although two further and improved aircraft were built as the CL-84-1, the programme started to lose momentum. The programme suffered another setback on 8 August 1973 when the first CL-84-1 was lost when a catastrophic failure occurred in the left propeller gearbox in a maximum power climb. The US Navy and US Marine pilots aboard ejected safely. It was rumoured that the pilots had attempted to set an unauthorised climb record to 10,000ft (3,000m). Although Canadair had foreseen various roles for the aircraft – troop transport, SAR, armed helicopter escort, casualty evacuation, forward air control – no customers ultimately came forward and the programme was quietly terminated in 1974.

• AA30_pp 8-13.indd 9

28/01/2017 09:04

10

CANADA

If only…

• AA30_pp 8-13.indd 10

28/01/2017 09:04

CANADAIR CL-84 DYNAVERT

11

General Dynamics was the parent company of Canadair at the time of the CL-84 project, and it christened the new aircraft, the ‘Dynavert’. These publicity images demonstrated the multi-mission roles for which the CL-84 was envisaged, including transport, ASW, AEW and gunship. Above: Following the loss of CF-VTO-X, Canadair redesigned its replacement incorporating over 150 engineering changes including the addition of dual controls, upgraded avionics, an airframe stretch of 5ft 3in (1.60m) and more powerful engines (boosted by 100hp). Designated CL-84-1, CX8401 flew on 19 February 1970 with Bill Longhurst again at the controls. Right and Below: In the cockpit fore and aft stick was always pitch, side-to-side was always roll and the rudder pedals were always yaw, irrespective of the wing position through its full range. The power of both engines was controlled by a single ‘power lever’ in all flight regimes. To provide crisp thrust control during hover, movement of the power lever caused a direct adjustment of blade angle, analogous to the collective pitch control of a helicopter.

• AA30_pp 8-13.indd 11

28/01/2017 09:04

12 CANADA

Above: The potency of the CL-84-1 as a gunship was demonstrated when it was fitted with a General Electric SUU-11A/A pod with a rotating six-barrel ‘Gatling’ 7.62mm gun. Left: Pre-flight checks included the rear stabilising tail rotor positioned behind the fins.

All at sea… During the Vietnam War, the US Navy expressed interest in the tilt-rotor concept, so the CL-84-1 was dispatched for trials on the USS Guam and later the USS Guadalcanal. The CL-84-1 performed flawlessly, demonstrating its versatility for ship-board operation. However, with the Vietnam War drawing to its conclusion, the US Navy lost interest in the project and with no other takers the project was cancelled.

AA30_pp 8-13.indd 12

31/01/2017 12:09

CANADAIR CL-84 DYNAVERT 13

AA30_pp 8-13.indd 13

31/01/2017 12:09

14

FRANCE

• AA30_pp 14-15.indd 14

28/01/2017 09:06

SNECMA COLÉOPTÈRE

SNECMA Coléoptère T he Coléoptère was developed and built collaboratively by Nord Aviation (airframe) and SNECMA (engine) in the mid-1950s. Its radical design had, at its core, a single jet engine (SNECMA ATAR 101E of 8,200lb). The fuselage featured large air intakes on either side of the cockpit, where the pilot sat on a swivelling ejector seat. Around the fuselage was an annular wing of 14ft span. The Coléoptère was an example of the purest form of VTOL aircraft – one that sat on its undercarriage (in this case, four legs with castoring wheels) in a vertical position, pointing skyward. Since the take-off had, by

definition, to be vertical, this would only be possible if the installed jet thrust comfortably exceeded the gross weight of the aircraft. Postwar developments in jet engine technology – French jet engine technology, that is – made possible the Coléoptère, which was built for research but with the long-term aim of building a fighter of similar layout. Testing of the sole prototype Coléoptère commenced at Melun Villaroche in December 1958, with SNECMA test pilot Auguste Morel in the cockpit. After a number of tests with the aircraft suspended from a gantry, Morel succeeded in taking off, and made eight successful vertical ascents and landings. No

15

transitions were attempted and a maximum height of 2,600ft (800m) was achieved. That these flights were achieved safely is very much to the credit of the pilot, as cockpit instrumentation was very basic and the aircraft difficult to control. On the ninth flight, on 25 July 1959, Morel lost control during his vertical landing. The aircraft oscillated wildly and Morel ejected, horizontally, at just 500ft. His parachute opened only partially, his impact with the ground caused injuries serious enough to end his test flying career, and the Coléoptère was destroyed in a fireball. This crash also signalled the end of one of the strangest programmes in aviation history.

Above: Proof that the Coléoptère did achieve vertical flight, with observers in a helicopter keeping a respectful distance. One can’t help but think that theirs was a safer mode of achieving the same objective. Left: Coléoptère is the French word for ‘beetle’, an appropriate name for this unusual craft. Right: The Coléoptère being raised into position in prepration for another test flight.

SNECMA Coléoptère Crew: Length: Wingspan:

One 26ft 4in (8.02m) 14ft 10in (4.51m) including fins Diameter: 10ft 6in (3.20m) Max. T/O weight: 6,614lb (3,000kg) Powerplant: 1 × Atar EV (101E) axial turbojet

AA30_pp 14-15.indd 15

31/01/2017 11:58

16

FRANCE

Dassault Mirage IIIV T he NATO competition NBMR-3 to select a single-seat V/STOL strike aircraft was reaching its final stages in the early1960s, with just two contenders remaining with a realistic chance of winning the contract – Dassault’s Mirage IIIV (‘V’ for ‘vertical’) and Hawker’s P1154. The Mirage IIIV was essentially a scaled-up Balzac V (see boxed item), retaining the classic delta wing and the Balzac’s nine-engined layout, but fitting new powerplants in the shape of a SNECMA-modified Pratt & Whitney

TF104 for propulsion and eight RB162 lift jets, paired in the centre fuselage. The Mirage IIIV also differed in that it had a taller vertical tail fin and the wing was larger, thinner and had a cranked leading edge. Unlike previous Mirage designs, twin landing gear wheels were used on all three legs. With much of the groundwork already carried out on the Balzac, René Bigand made the first hovering flight at Melun Villaroche on 10 February 1965. Within a few weeks, he had progressed to free hovers and was opening

up the envelope, but the programme was then paused while the propulsion engine was changed to a more powerful TF106 (19,800lb) and various problems with the lift engines and the ejection seat were ironed out. The prototype was then moved to Istres with its longer runway, where Jean-Marie Saget made the first conventional take-off on 24 July 1965. By December the aircraft had achieved supersonic flight, but it wasn’t until 24 March 1966 that the first transition from hover to forward flight was made. Worryingly

Dassault Balzac V To prove the Mirage IIIV concept, Dassault converted the first Mirage III prototype, replacing the Atar engine by a Bristol Siddeley Orpheus of much lower thrust and reconfiguring the centre fuselage to fit no fewer than eight RB108 lift engines. The converted aircraft was built from a Mirage, it looked like a Mirage, it was built to pave the way for the Mirage IIIV – but Dassault named it Balzac V 001. The first (and only) prototype started its flight testing at Melun Villaroche with a tethered hover on 12 October 1962, piloted by Dassault’s René Bigand who had already flown the SC1 at RAE Bedford earlier that year to gain VTOL experience. Free flights followed, leading to the first transition on the 19th flight on 29 March 1963. The aircraft showed itself to be stable and controllable, although problems of extreme heat and reingestion when in the hover and near the ground – bugbears of all jet VTOL types – revealed themselves. A high-profile presentation to the French government was made on 8 April 1963, after which the Balzac was handed over to the CEV (French test centre) for further evaluation. The Balzac appeared at the 1963 le Bourget Salon where it wowed the crowds, but crashed while in the hover on 10 January 1964. Pilot Jacques Pinier was too low to eject, and was killed. Although badly damaged, the aircraft was rebuilt and flew again just a year later. Its luck ran out on 8 September 1965, when it crashed again on its 179th flight while being flown by Maj Philip Neale, a USAF test pilot. Neale was killed and the aircraft was a write-off. By this time, though, the Mirage IIIV had started its flight trials.

• AA30_pp 16-17.indd 16

28/01/2017 09:07

DASSAULT MIRAGE IIIV for Dassault, the IIIV proved less stable and controllable than the Balzac during transitions. A second prototype, fitted with a Pratt & Whitney TF306 turbofan, flew in summer 1966 and joined the test programme at Istres in the September. That month it reached Mach 2.04, becoming the first V/STOL type to achieve twice the speed of sound. The aircraft’s flying career was cut short when, on its 24th flight on 28 November 1966, it crashed at Istres. This set-back effectively killed the programme, although all had not been well long before that date. It had become evident that NATO was never going to select a single V/STOL strike aircraft to equip all its air forces; the French would surely buy the Mirage IIIV, the RAF the Hawker P1154 and the others would

• AA30_pp 16-17.indd 17

in all probability take neither. NATO unity only works up to a point! The Mirage IIIV had shown its capabilities during the programme’s short life, but the aircraft was hugely complex and unaffordably expensive. Fuel consumption was extremely high, especially during hovering flight and consequently range was very poor. Armée de l’Air engineers also baulked at the logistical problems of supporting a squadron of nine-engined aircraft in the field, while the French defence minister noted that the unit cost of a Mirage IIIV would be six times that of a conventional Mirage IIIE. Much of the research data gained in the Balzac V’s 179 flights, the Mirage IIIV 01’s 40 flights and the Mirage IIIV 02’s 24 flights was used in other Dassault programmes.

17

Dassault Mirage IIIV Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 59ft 1in (18.0m) 28ft 7in (8.7m) 18ft 2 in (5.5m) 22,500lb (10,200kg) 29,080lb (13,190kg) 1,350mph (2,170km/h) 1 x Pratt & Whitney TF106 (19,800lb), 8 x Rolls-Royce RB162 (4,400lb) Eight lift engines

Below: The Mirage IIIV was equipped with a staggering eight lift engines.

28/01/2017 09:07

18

GERMANY

EWR SÜD VJ-101C

20

EWR Süd VJ-101C Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 51ft 6in (15.7m) 21ft 8in (6.61m) 13ft 6in (4.1m) 13,420lb (6,100kg) Mach 1.04 6 x Rolls-Royce RB145 turbojets of 2,750lb thrust each Swivelled jets and lift engines

Below: Vertical take-off was achieved by six RB145 engines, two mounted vertically in the fuselage and four in the swivelling nacelles.

EWR Süd VJ-101C G ermany’s aircraft industry was definitely on the ‘up’ in the earlyand mid-1960s, with several futuristic designs on the drawing board and, critically, finding the money to finance them to prototype stage. The EWR VJ-101C was conceived as the forerunner of a proposed Mach 2 interceptor and possible VTOL successor to the Luftwaffe’s then-new F-104G Starfighter. To achieve a vertical take-off, it had six engines, all Rolls-Royce RB145s rated at 2,750lb. Wingtip nacelles each contained two RB145s and could be swivelled to the vertical for take-off and landing and then progressively moved to

AA30_pp 19-20.indd 2-3

the horizontal for transition and forward flight. Two further RB145s in the centre fuselage were employed solely for lift. Two prototypes were built by EWR (a joint venture between Heinkel, Messerschmitt and Bölkow) and were preceded by a complex ‘hover rig’ which was used to prove the proposed control system and to build confidence. Prototype X1 made its first free hover at Manching on 9 April 1963, flown by the American test pilot George Bright. Testing continued and a full transition was achieved on 8 October the same year. Demonstrations were made at the 1964 Hannover show in April/May 1964, where the aircraft undoubtedly

19

Above: The first VTOL aircraft to fly supersonic, the sleek VJ-101C was to be the basis for a Starfighter replacement. ‘VJ’ stood for Versuchsjäger, German for Experimental Fighter.

proved to be the star attraction. It achieved Mach 1.04 in level flight on 29 July, thus becoming the first supersonic VTOL aircraft. Sadly the glory was short lived as it crashed on 14 September 1964. There was a hiatus in the test programme until second prototype X2 took to the air, which it did with hovering flights in October 1964 and a vertical take-off on 12 October the following year. This was a heavier aircraft with afterburners on the RB145s

and a greater fuel load. Testing continued with short rolling take-offs, while X2 later achieved Mach 1.2. The VJ-101C must rate as a highly successful programme, which demonstrated the viability of the overall concept. Despite that, the proposed Mach 2 VJ-101D was never built.

20

31/01/2017 11:57

19

GERMANY

EWR SÜD VJ-101C

19

EWR Süd VJ-101C Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 51ft 6in (15.7m) 21ft 8in (6.61m) 13ft 6in (4.1m) 13,420lb (6,100kg) Mach 1.04 6 x Rolls-Royce RB145 turbojets of 2,750lb thrust each Swivelled jets and lift engines

Below: Vertical take-off was achieved by six RB145 engines, two mounted vertically in the fuselage and four in the swivelling nacelles.

EWR Süd VJ-101C G ermany’s aircraft industry was definitely on the ‘up’ in the earlyand mid-1960s, with several futuristic designs on the drawing board and, critically, finding the money to finance them to prototype stage. The EWR VJ-101C was conceived as the forerunner of a proposed Mach 2 interceptor and possible VTOL successor to the Luftwaffe’s then-new F-104G Starfighter. To achieve a vertical take-off, it had six engines, all Rolls-Royce RB145s rated at 2,750lb. Wingtip nacelles each contained two RB145s and could be swivelled to the vertical for take-off and landing and then progressively moved to

AA30_pp 19-20.indd 2-3

the horizontal for transition and forward flight. Two further RB145s in the centre fuselage were employed solely for lift. Two prototypes were built by EWR (a joint venture between Heinkel, Messerschmitt and Bölkow) and were preceded by a complex ‘hover rig’ which was used to prove the proposed control system and to build confidence. Prototype X1 made its first free hover at Manching on 9 April 1963, flown by the American test pilot George Bright. Testing continued and a full transition was achieved on 8 October the same year. Demonstrations were made at the 1964 Hannover show in April/May 1964, where the aircraft undoubtedly

19

Above: The first VTOL aircraft to fly supersonic, the sleek VJ-101C was to be the basis for a Starfighter replacement. ‘VJ’ stood for Versuchsjäger, German for Experimental Fighter.

proved to be the star attraction. It achieved Mach 1.04 in level flight on 29 July, thus becoming the first supersonic VTOL aircraft. Sadly the glory was short lived as it crashed on 14 September 1964. There was a hiatus in the test programme until second prototype X2 took to the air, which it did with hovering flights in October 1964 and a vertical take-off on 12 October the following year. This was a heavier aircraft with afterburners on the RB145s

and a greater fuel load. Testing continued with short rolling take-offs, while X2 later achieved Mach 1.2. The VJ-101C must rate as a highly successful programme, which demonstrated the viability of the overall concept. Despite that, the proposed Mach 2 VJ-101D was never built.

20

31/01/2017 11:57

20

GERMANY

Bachem Ba 349 Natter T he Bachem Ba 349 Natter (adder) was a last-ditch attempt by Germany’s aircraft industry to provide a simple, easy-to-construct rocket-powered fighter that could scythe its way through the allied bomber streams that were, by 1944, flying over the Fatherland with relative impunity by day and by night. The Natter was intended to be expendable; by that stage of the war, the Luftwaffe was prepared to think of its pilots the same way. Constructed primarily of wood, the Natter had wings of just 13ft span, a liquid-fuelled Walter rocket engine in the fuselage and four externally-mounted solid-fuel boosters, and was launched from a vertically-mounted 60ft

tower. Armament was intended to be a battery of air-to-air rockets in the nose. Early examples of the Natter were tested as gliders and in unmanned vertical launches. Such was the urgency attached to the programme that a first manned launch was attempted at the test site on 1 March 1945. A volunteer 22-year-old Luftwaffe pilot, one Lothar Sieber (some reports have him as ‘Siebert’), climbed the ladder into the cockpit, and settled himself while the hood was closed before igniting the rockets and accelerating Below: Desperate times called for desperate measures. The Bachem Natter was designed as a vertical take-off rocket-powered interceptor armed with a nose full of rockets.

vertically under 14,000lb of thrust. Something went wrong just seconds later; the aircraft pitched onto its back, the canopy was seen to detach and the aircraft nose-dived into the ground. Sieber had no chance, and was killed. Within 10 weeks, the war would be over, and no Natter was ever employed operationally.

Bachem Ba 349 Natter Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

AA30_pp 18.indd 18

One 19ft 8in (6m) 13ft 1in (4m) 7ft 5in (2.25m) 1,940lb (880kg) 4,921lb (2,232kg) 621mph (1,000km/h) 1 x Walter HWK 109-509C-1 bi-fuel rocket motor of 2,500lb thrust and 4 x Schmidding SG34 solid fuel booster rockets Vertical take off

31/01/2017 11:57

DORNIER Do 31 21

Dornier Do 31 T en engines and the world’s only jetpowered V/STOL transport, the Dornier Do 31 was a sight and sound to behold. Alongside NATO’s NBMR-3 contest for a V/STOL strike fighter, which was won jointly by Dassault with its Mirage IIIV and Hawker Siddeley with its P1154, was a parallel requirement for a transport aircraft capable of V/STOL operation to supply the dispersed or austere operating bases envisaged. This was NBMR-4. Many European aircraft companies put forward their designs, including Hawker Siddeley with the HS681 and Dornier with its Do 31. The HS681 was cancelled by the decision of an incoming British government in 1965, but the German government held its nerve and took two prototypes (E1 and E3; E2 was a static test airframe) of the Do 31 all the way to flight test. The German Luftwaffe was rightly concerned that its main air bases with their NATO standard 8,000ft runways, many of them close to the frontier with War Pac countries, might quickly be overrun should war break out. This was the mid-1960s, when the consensus of opinion was

that War Pac forces could, if they wished, roll across central Europe and be at the Channel ports by teatime on Friday! The Do 31 promised the ability to transport a four-ton payload right into the front line, wherever the troops or fighters were operating. The Do 31 design was nothing if not ambitious. Two Bristol Siddeley Pegasus 5/2 vectored thrust engines, derated to 15,500lb, provided the main thrust, while eight RB162 dedicated lift engines were mounted in wingtip pods. Dornier approached the test programme with typical German thoroughness. Various ground rigs were employed to test the autostabilisation system, while a ‘Big Hover Rig’ generally representative of the Do 31 but with only six lift engines was used to give pilots familiarity with the aircraft’s hovering characteristics. Prototype E1 was intended for conventional flying only and thus lacked the wingtip pods and lift engines. It made its first flight at Oberpfaffenhofen on 10 February 1967. Meanwhile, E3 with the full 10-engine fit followed along behind, making its first

Above left: The Dornier Do 31 was an experimental VTOL jet transport designed to meet a NATO specification. It was a technological success (in that it worked), but the large drag and weight of the lift engine pods reduced the useful payload and range compared to conventional transport aircraft. Below: The impressive sight of a large jet transport aircraft in the hover. It was planned to replace the outer nacelles and their engines with RB153 turbofans when they became available, but the programme was cancelled before this could be achieved.

AA30_pp 23.indd 23

Dornier Do 31 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

Two 68ft 6in (20.9m) 59ft 3in (18.1m) 28ft 8in (8.7m) 30,560lb (13,860kg) 60,500lb (27,440kg) 450mph (725km/h) 2 x Rolls-Royce Pegasus 5/2 vectored thrust engines of 15,500lb and 8 x RB162 lift jets of 4,400lb each Lift engines, vectored thrust main propulsion engines

(conventional) flight on 14 July 1967. The first vertical take-offs and landing were made on 22 November, while full transitions were completed in December. The Do 31’s pilots made it all look easy, demonstrating transitions at the le Bourget Salon in 1969 and at the Hannover ILA the following year. The aircraft wasn’t pretty, and it was fiendishly noisy in the hover, but it all worked. If there was a flaw in Dornier’s plans, it was that the equipment required to achieve V/STOL flight increased the aircraft’s complexity and cost and reduced its payload. The Do 31’s final flight was by E3 at Hannover in May 1970, by which time the ambitious programme had been abandoned. Subsequently, both prototypes found well-deserved homes in German museums.

31/01/2017 11:55

AA30_pp 21-22.indd 2-3

21

22

31/01/2017 12:44

AA30_pp 21-22.indd 2-3

21

22

31/01/2017 12:44

24

GERMANY

VFW VAK 191B T

he VFW VAK 191B suffered a rather lengthy development. It was conceived in the early 1960s as a German contender to meet a NATO requirement for a Fiat G91 replacement, and at a heady time when there was talk of the Luftwaffe going for an all-VTOL front-line fighter force. The VAK 191B was produced by Vereinigte Flugtechnische Werke (VFW) a German company formed by Focke-Wulf and Weser-

• AA30_pp 24-25.indd 24

Flugzeugbau. VAK was the abbreviation for Vertikalstartendes Aufklärungs und Kampfflugzeug (V/STOL Reconnaissance and Strike Aircraft). In some respects, the VAK 191B was similar in concept to Hawker’s Harrier, although powered by three (rather than just one) engines. Two Rolls-Royce RB162 (5,600lb) lift engines were mounted ‘forward and aft’ in the fuselage, with a vectored thrust Rolls-Royce/MAN Turbo RB193

Above: Although bearing a passing resemblance to the Harrier, the VAK-191B had a more complicated layout featuring three different lift engines. Between 1970-1975, three VAK 191Bs were tested making 91 flights.

(10,150lb) at the aircraft’s C of G. The RB163, whose only application was the VAK 191B, was similar in concept to the Pegasus, with rotating forward ‘cold’ and rear ‘hot’ nozzles, but it was smaller and of lower thrust. The thrust line of

28/01/2017 09:45

VFW VAK 191B

25

VFW VAK 191B

the RB162s was inclined 12.5 degrees rearwards from the vertical, such that they provided an element of propulsion as well as lift. Three prototypes were built, the first making its maiden hovering flight at Bremen on 10 September 1971, piloted by VFW’s Ludwig Obermeier. Within a year, all three were flying and the first full transition was carried out on 26 October 1972. Despite this achievement, the West German government cancelled the whole

AA30_pp 24-25.indd 25

programme just six weeks later, this decision coming as a bitter blow to the development team, which felt that the aircraft was beginning to show its capabilities. Some further research flying was done with the three prototypes, including a US/German V/STOL programme and some development flying in connection with MRCA (as the Tornado was then referred to). But its chances of going into production were, as the Germans say, kaput.

Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 53ft 7in (16.4m) 20ft 3in (6.16m) 14ft 1in (4.3m) 12,236lb (5,562kg) 19,800lb (9,000kg) 684mph (1,108km/h) 1 x Rolls-Royce/Man RB193-12 lift/cruise turbofan of 10,150lb, and 2 x Rolls-Royce RB162-81 lift turbojets of 5,587lb each Vectored thrust and dedicated lift engines

31/01/2017 11:53

26

SOVIET UNION

Yakovlev Yak-36 ‘Freehand’ T he Soviet Union produced three VTOL fighter designs, starting with the Yakovlev Yak-36, which made its first, tentative hover on 9 January 1963. This Yak-36 (NATO codename ‘Freehand’) was powered by two Tumansky R27 turbojets mounted in the lower fuselage, each exhausting through a single vectoring nozzle positioned at the aircraft’s C of G. Control at low airspeeds was by ‘puffer jets’ at the aircraft’s extremities, and a bicycle undercarriage arrangement with outrigger wheels was adopted – all very much ‘à la Harrier’. The original Yak-36 was only intended as a technology demonstrator, but the two

• AA30_pp 26-27.indd 26

prototypes proved passably easy to handle and made quite a few spectacular flight demonstrations, both to Party faithfuls (who had no option but to applaud) and to the crowds at the July 1967 Domodedovo air show. While the second prototype at the show carried under-wing rocket pods, the Yak-36 was never designed as a warplane. Yakovlev though, used

the experience gained to produce a new VTOL fighter design, this time for the Soviet Navy that was showing great interest for its forthcoming Type 1123 aircraft carriers. Despite being designated Yak-36M, it was a completely new design sharing little or no commonality with the earlier type. As such, it is best considered along with the Yak-38.

Right: Four Yak-36s were built. The first was used for static testing, while the second (pictured) was used for for take-off and landing tests, including free hovering. The third incorporated technological improvements, but crashed during testing. A similar fate was suffered by the fourth aircraft, by which time the programme had achieved its objectives. Below: The first untethered vertical flight was made on 23 June 1963, followed by the first full transition to horizontal flight on 16 September 1963. Piotr Butowski Collection

28/01/2017 09:46

• AA30_pp 26-27.indd 27

28/01/2017 09:46

28 SOVIET UNION

Yakovlev Yak-38 ‘Forger’ T he Soviet Naval Aviation’s only operational VTOL strike fighter was the Yak-38 ‘Forger’, that equipped four carriers in the 1980s. After reviewing the design of Hawker’s single-engined P1127, the Yakovlev project team decided that the Yak-36M would better add a pair of vertically-mounted lift engines

Yakovlev Yak-38 ‘Forger’ Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

AA30_pp 28-31.indd 28

One 53ft 8in (16.4m) 23ft (7.0m) 13ft 11in (4.2m) 15,500lb (7,030kg) 24,900lb (11,300kg) 750mph (1,210km/h) 2 x RD36 lift engines (RD36, 6,600lb), 1 x R27 turbojet (14,900lb) with vectoring nozzles Dedicated lift engines plus vectored thrust main engine

(RD36) in the forward fuselage and a revised and uprated R27 turbojet with a vectoring nozzle each side further aft. Designed as a light attack aircraft for use from a ship’s deck, the Yak-36M had provision for under-wing weapon pylons and a conformal gun pod under the centre fuselage. Breaking with company tradition, the undercarriage featured a conventional tricycle arrangement. First hover was achieved on 22 September 1970, and the first conventional flight 10 weeks later on 2 December. Early tests revealed several glitches with the aircraft’s flight control system when manoeuvring in the hover, with pilot Valentin Mookhin suffering a few hard landings. Second and third prototypes joined the programme, and testing was extended to

include weapons delivery and first operations from the carrier Moskva. These shipboard tests lasted for more than a year (November 1972 to December 1973), and proved the type could safely operate from an aircraft carrier or, indeed, from any vessel offering a 20m x 20m landing pad. On 22 November 1972, project pilot Mikhail Deksbakh flew a full simulated operational mission from the ship, with a vertical take-off, transitions to and from conventional flight and a vertical landing. This date is long remembered in Russia as the birthday of (Soviet) fixed-wing naval aviation. Having completed rigorous testing, the aircraft was cleared for service in 1976. Yes, the aircraft’s top speed was only marginally supersonic, range was down on the design

31/01/2017 11:52

YAKOVLEV YAK-38 29 requirement and there would have to be some restrictions on the flight envelope, but the Navy needed to get operational experience with VTOL operations and this aircraft was the only way forward. Accordingly, series production was authorised under the designation Yak-38. The Yak-38 was initially cleared only for VTOL operation, and the first squadron embarked on the carrier Kiev in 1976 to work up. VTOL operations in the high ambient temperatures encountered in the Black Sea restricted the aircraft, when taking off vertically, to carrying limited fuel and little or no armament. Despite this, it was not until late in 1979 that clearance was given for short rolling take-offs. As with the Harrier, the ability to use a few hundred feet of deck run to gain some aerodynamic lift improved the Yak-38’s usefulness as a warplane considerably. When the Kiev entered Above: Early schematic showing the lift devices of the Yak-38. Combined with the main vectored thrust engine in the rear, two smaller, and less powerful, engines were housed in the front portion of the fuselage and used purely for takeoff and landing. Left: A Yakovlev Yak-38 ‘Forger’ landing aboard Novorossiysk in 1984. The Yak-38 possessed an automatic ejection seat. If one of the take-off engines failed, once the aircraft rolled past 60 degrees the pilot was automatically ejected from the aircraft. Below: Photographed by US Navy reconnaissance aircraft, a pair of Yakovlev Yak-38s are captured in 1983. Although the ‘Forger’ bore a passing resemblance to the Harrier, that was as far as it went. The Yak-38 could not match the durability and capability of its Western counterpart.

• AA30_pp 28-31.indd 29

the Mediterranean in July 1976, it had Yak-38s lined up on the deck and put on a show of capability for the NATO patrol aircraft – RAF Nimrods, US Navy P-3 Orions – that were overflying the ship to get the first good intelligence photos. The Yak-38 served, albeit in relatively small numbers, on board Soviet carriers with the Northern, Pacific and Black Sea Fleets for 15 years. Despite the availability of a two-seat variant (Yak-38U), conversion to type proved difficult and pilots never got enough flight hours really to master it. Thus, the Yak-38 had a bad reputation as being difficult to handle. With the Soviet Navy’s interest in VTOL operations lessening, the Yak-38 fleet was retired in summer 1991.

28/01/2017 09:48

30 SOVIET UNION

• AA30_pp 28-31.indd 30

28/01/2017 09:49

YAKOVLEV YAK-38 31

Above left: An underside view of the ‘Forger’ revealing its vectored thrust nozzles at the rear. Left: ‘Forger’ operations in the Mediterranean came under close scrutiny from the West, eager to discover the true capabilities of the Soviet VTOL aircraft. Above: The Yak-38 was developed specifically for the four ‘Kiev’-class aircraft carriers, Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Admiral Gorshkov. Right: Operations of the carrier Minsk in the Mediterranean in the early 1980s allowed the West to get a close-up view of the Soviet Naval Aviation’s only operational VTOL strike fighter. Below: The two-seat training version differed from the basic aircraft in having an enlarged fuselage to accommodate a two-seat cockpit. The Yak-38U entered service on 15 November 1978 with a total of 38 being produced.

• AA30_pp 28-31.indd 31

28/01/2017 09:49

32

SOVIET UNION

Yakovlev Yak-41 ‘Freestyle’ W hile the Yak-38 was only marginally supersonic, Yakovlev’s designers had turned their attention to a vastly improved VTOL fighter from late 1973. The new type would be capable of Mach 1.5 and, unlike the Yak-38, be fitted with a radar. Designated Yak-41 (although often referred to as Yak-141), the aircraft stayed with the ‘two plus one’ powerplant arrangement, the main

Yakovlev Yak-41 ‘Freestyle’ Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

AA30_pp 32-33.indd 32

One 60ft 2in (18.36m) 33ft 1in (10.10m) 16ft 5in (5m) 25,683lb (11,650kg) 42,989lb (19,500kg) M 1.4+ (1,118mph) 2 x RKBM lift engines (RD41, 9,6300lb), 1 x Soyuz R-79V-300 turbofan (24,300lb) with vectoring nozzle Dedicated lift engines plus vectored thrust main engine

engine being a new R79 turbofan fitted with a single, vectoring nozzle. This dictated the need for a split rear fuselage, with the tailplane (twin vertical fins and stabilators) being mounted on tail booms. A fly-by-wire flight control system was fitted along with full FADEC control of all three engines, and the propulsion engine featured afterburning that could be employed in both vertical and horizontal flight. Rarely has one aircraft introduced so many ‘firsts’. The first Yak-41 destined to fly, ’75 White’, was taken by road to the test centre at Zhukovsky in May 1986, from where it made its maiden, conventional flight on 9 March 1987. The test programme expanded to full transitions, and to short, rolling take-offs with lift engines powered

up and with the main engine vectoring nozzle partially deflected. Sea trials aboard the carrier Admiral Gorshkov got under way in September/ October 1991. These were marred by the 5 October crash of the second prototype which became unstable in the hover for landing, pilot Yakimov ejecting as the aircraft impacted the flight deck, collapsing the undercarriage and starting a raging fire. Below: Chief Yakovlev test pilot Sinitsyn set 12 new world records in the Yak-41. However, as the Yak-41 designation was classified, the records were submitted under the fictitious name of ‘Yak-141’. As a result, the previously unknown aircraft was known in the west as the Yak-141, ‘Freestyle’. Piotr Butowski Collection

31/01/2017 12:30

YAKOVLEV YAK41/141

33

Left: An artist’s rather optimistic impression of the Yakovlev Yak-41 operating on board a ‘Tbilisi’ class aircraft carrier. Below: The Yak-41 in the hover, balancing on the thrust of its vectored main engine and two dedicated lift engines.

By this time, it was all over bar the shouting. The Soviet Navy had decided to terminate funding for the Yak-41, a decision that led the post-détente Yakovlev to seek international partners to continue the programme. It was with this aim that the remaining prototype was flown at the SBAC’s Farnborough show in September 1992. But there were no takers, and the programme died a slow death over the next couple of years.

AA30_pp 32-33.indd 33

31/01/2017 12:30

34

UNITED KINGDOM

Fairey FD1 T he Fairey Delta 1 (FD1) has a slightly tenuous claim for inclusion in this ‘Aviation Archive’ of vertical takeoff aircraft. While originally conceived as a ramp-launched fighter capable of employment aboard British warships, in the event it was completed as a more conventional research aircraft with a small delta-wing and tricycle undercarriage. When all of the captured German data was evaluated after World War 2, one of the aircraft that captured the imagination of the British Air Ministry was the Bachem Natter vertical take-off interceptor. This appealed to Fairey, which was working on a proposed VTO fighter for possible ship-board use. Three prototypes were ordered in 1947 but only one was completed. The first – and only – prototype VX350 was built to specification E.10/47 (Experimental specification 10 of 1947), the design originally envisaging rocket boosters to supplement the Rolls-Royce Derwent turbojet installed. These were never fitted, and the FD1 proved somewhat underpowered on its single jet engine. Constructed by Fairey at its Heaton Chapel works at Stockport, the prototype did its taxiing trials at Ringway (now Manchester airport) before being taken by road to Boscombe Down, where it made its first flight on 12 March 1951. The aircraft provided some useful data on the handling of delta wings

• AA30_pp 34-35.indd 34

Fairey Delta 1 Type: Crew: Length: Wingspan: Powerplants: Loaded weight: Max speed:

Research Prototype One 26ft 3in (8m) 19ft 6in (5.8m) 1 x Rolls-Royce Derwent 8 of 3,600lb thrust 8,000lb 345mph

and the employment of braking parachutes but, unlike the later and totally different FD2, it never made a great mark in aviation history. When it lost its undercarriage in an emergency landing at Boscombe Down on 6 February 1956, few tears were shed and it was quietly put to one side, its flying career at an end. Right: Inspired by the concept of the Bachem Natter, the flying career of the Fairey Delta 1 was quickly consigned to history. Below: The stubby Fairey Delta 1 was not an easy (or indeed safe) aircraft to fly. In the event, its proposed ramp-launched ‘vertical’ capability was never explored (perhaps thankfully).

28/01/2017 09:51

FAIREY FD1

• AA30_pp 34-35.indd 35

35

28/01/2017 09:52

36

UNITED KINGDOM

Flying Bedstead

T

he pioneering Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig (TMR), has the distinction of being the first jet-lift vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft to fly anywhere in the world The Flying Bedstead, to give the Rolls-Royce Thrust Measuring Rig its more poular title, was a very early attempt to produce an aircraft – if, indeed, it was an aircraft – capable of vertical take-off and landing. Constructed with a tubular framework, its ‘fuselage’ housed two vertically-mounted Rolls-Royce Nene turbojets and its undercarriage comprised four long legs with castoring wheels. Attitude control was by ‘puffer jets’ at the extremities of long booms, these employing high pressure compressed air. This system of control had been designed by Dennis Higton of the RAE Aero Flight at Farnborough, and the Flying Bedstead was intended to prove its practicability. The rig made initial flights in a gantry at Rolls-Royce’s Hucknall plant starting in August 1953 and its first free flight on 3 August the following year. Two prototypes were built, XJ314 and XK426. Although the aircraft was

• AA30_pp 36-37.indd 36

Above: Despite its ‘Heath Robinson’ appearance, the aptly-named Flying Bedstead’s place in aviation history is assured. Right: The Flying Bedstead was a tricky aircraft to fly. It possessed only marginal excess power and this was further compounded by the slow response time of the engines to throttle changes. Accordingly, its pilots had to demonstrate a considerable degree of anticipation in the use of engine power to prevent overshooting the desired altitude and to ensure a gentle touchdown when landing.

underpowered and required great skill on the part of the pilot, the Bedstead proved the concept of an aircraft employing jet-borne lift and the use of puffer jets to control it. The first prototype flew successfully from Hucknall, Farnborough and Bedford until it suffered a non-fatal crash on 16 September 1957 following a failure in the autostabilisation system. XK426 was less fortunate. On 28 November 1957, when making his first flight on the type at Hucknall, Wg Cdr Henry Larsen was killed when the aircraft struck the gantry during tethered flight and rolled over.

28/01/2017 09:52

FLYING BEDSTEAD

AA30_pp 36-37.indd 37

37

31/01/2017 14:40

• AA30_pp 39-40.indd 2-3

39

40

28/01/2017 09:53

• AA30_pp 39-40.indd 2-3

39

40

28/01/2017 09:53

40

UNITED KINGDOM

Short SC1 T he history-making Short SC1 could take off and land vertically and hover mid-air. For a fixed-wing jet aircraft in 1958, this was nothing short of remarkable. Following on from the ‘Flying Bedstead’, the next stage in Britain’s quest for practical VTOL flight involved the construction by Short in Belfast of two prototypes of the SC1. The design featured a delta wing and five engines – Rolls-Royce RB108s offering 2,000lb thrust apiece and having the unprecedented (for the time) thrust: weight ratio of 8:1. Four were mounted vertically in the centre fuselage around the aircraft’s C of G, while a fifth provided power for forward flight. Two prototypes, XG900 and XG905, were built and Short’s Chief Test Pilot Tom BrookeSmith made the first conventional flight (with only the thrust engine installed) on 2 April 1957. As a first step, Brooke-Smith had earlier

Short SC1 Crew:

One (usually Tom Brooke-Smith) Length: 29ft 10in (9.1m) Wingspan: 23ft 6in (7.2m) Height: 9ft 10in (3.0m) Weight empty: 6,000lb (2,720kg) Max. T/O weight: 8,050lb (3,650kg) Max speed: 250mph (400km/h) Powerplant: 5 x RB108 turbojets (2,000lb)

AA30_pp 38.indd 38

piloted the ‘Flying Bedstead’, a skill he likened to learning to riding a bicycle. By October 1958 he was hovering the SC1 and XG905 made its debut hovering at the Farnborough show in September 1959, though Brooke-Smith had to curtail his display when the intakes became clogged by newly-mown grass stirred up by his take-off. It would be April 1960 before the first full transition to and from conventional flight was made.

The SC1 flew across the Channel in May 1961, with XG900 making the journey from Bedford to le Bourget in five stages over five days. Judged overall, the programme was extremely successful, marred only by the fatal crash of XG905 on 2 October 1963, when its autostabilisation system failed. The question of whether the future of VTOL lay with aircraft with discrete lift and thrust engines was, however, still open for discussion.

Top: The first Short SC1 prototype, XG900. Right: With its highly-polished metal finish gleaming in the sunshine, Short SC1 XG905 is prepared for another test flight. The robust undercarriage was specially designed and was able to withstand a descent rate of 18ft (5.5m) per second. Below: Not only did the Short SC1 resemble a blowfly on steroids, it also flew like one… Short’s Tom Brooke-Smith was the first pilot to make a jet powered vertical take off in a fixed wing aircraft, then translate into aerodynamic flight and return to the hover for the vertical landing.

31/01/2017 11:50

FAIREY ROTODYNE 41

Fairey Rotodyne T he Fairey (later Westland, once they had taken over Fairey Aviation’s activities) Rotodyne was one of the British aircraft industry’s great white hopes. An altogether larger aircraft than the Gyrodyne (see overleaf), the Rotodyne adopted the same broad compound helicopter concept. The prototype, built at the factory at Hayes and then moved to White Waltham for final assembly in early 1957, was a 33,000lb aircraft powered by two Napier Eland turboprops and with a four-bladed, 90ft rotor. It only had partial seating in the cabin, but there was space for 40 passengers in a ‘2+2’ seating arrangement, while the rear of the fuselage sported clamshell doors to permit the ‘straight in’ loading of freight. With the Gyrodyne having done much of the proving work, the prototype Rotodyne progressed rapidly. First flight was on 6 November 1957, although this was in pure helicopter mode; it was not until 10 April 1958 that the first transition was made. As confidence built up, the flight envelope was extended. In January 1959, the Rotodyne set a world speed record over a 100km closed course at 191mph (307km/h) – a speed way above that achieved by any helicopter. The prototype, carrying the

• AA30_pp 43-45.indd 43

military serial XE521 and later RAF roundels on the basis that ‘the Ministry of Aviation paid for it’, had a ready customer in British European Airways (BEA), which foresaw the Rotodyne as the transport of the future, offering city-centreto-city-centre flights. The RAF also made noises that suggested it was interested in the type for operation into unprepared strips. Things were going well for the Rotodyne. A Heathrow-Brussels flight on 16 June 1959 impressed the Belgian national carrier SABENA, and some of their executives continued with the aircraft to land in central Paris at the Issyles-Molineux heliport near the Eiffel Tower. It then continued to the le Bourget Salon, where it flew daily and wowed the crowds. Kaman, a major helicopter manufacturer in the United States, had by that time concluded an agreement with Fairey to become agents for the Rotodyne in North America with the possibility of license production. Airlines including Okanagan Helicopters of Canada, New York Airways and Japan Airlines had placed orders for the aircraft and a larger production variant, the Rotodyne Type Z, was planned. Yes, the Rotodyne was noisy, but only particularly so during the time the tip jets were lit for take-off and landing. It

cannot have been that bad, as the prototype operated into the Battersea Heliport in March 1961 with no adverse comments. Then, suddenly, the project was cancelled. On 26 February 1962, the government withdrew its support, although its statement in the Commons left the company the option to continue the project on its own if it wished. BEA, it announced, had concluded ‘with reluctance’ that it was not prepared to take the risk of being the lead customer for the type. As has happened too often with other advanced projects in the UK, the Rotodyne suffered from being too far ahead of the field, and its government backers started to worry that they were taking too much risk. It would not be for a further 27 years that an aircraft of similar capability would be built, tested and – this time – brought into service. That aircraft would be the V-22 Osprey, but it would come from Fort Worth, Texas rather than from West London. Below: Fairey had high hopes for its Rotodyne, but although it was promising in concept and successful in trials, it never got beyond a single flying prototype.

28/01/2017 09:55

• AA30_pp 41-42.indd 2-3

41

42

28/01/2017 09:54

• AA30_pp 41-42.indd 2-3

41

42

28/01/2017 09:54

44

UNITED KINGDOM

Above: The interior of the Rotodyne was designed to accommodate 40 passengers. Fairey estimated that the Rotodyne could operate at half the seat mile cost of helicopters and was more cost effective than airliners of the day up to a 150-mile radius. Right: Construction of the fuselage and wings underway at Fairey’s Hayes factory.

Fairey Jet Gyrodyne Fairey’s Jet Gyrodyne was never intended as a production aircraft. Rather, it was built for research, to test the practicality of the tip-jet system to power the rotor of a compound helicopter for take-off and landing. Its single Alvis Leonides radial piston engine powered both propellers while a further drive powered two compressors under the rotor head which fed air at high pressure to the rotor tips. At the tips, the exiting compressed air was augmented by kerosene, which was vaporised and ignited to spin the rotor. This simple scheme, in which the rotor was not directly powered by the engine as in a conventional helicopter, gave the required lift for take-off. Once a decent height had been reached, the pilot translated to forward flight. When the transition was complete, the aircraft had its lift provided both by its stubby wings and by the now auto-rotating rotor. First flight was in January 1954, but it was not until 1 March 1955 that a transition was achieved. Nevertheless, the Jet Gyrodyne gave an impressive display at the 1955 Farnborough show and eventually some 190 transitions were made, all without undue drama. By this stage, it had served its purpose and paved the way for an altogether larger aircraft which was very much intended for production; the Fairey Rotodyne.

Above: The Rotodyne’s tip-jet drive and unloaded rotor made its performance far better when compared to pure helicopters and other forms of ‘convertiplanes’. However, the noise that it generated in the hover was a cause of great concern considering it was designed as a city-tocity transport. Right: A tantalising glimpse of what might have been. Had fate been kinder to Fairey and the Rotodyne, the aircraft could have been plying the airways between city centres around the world. Below: Rotodyne performed to expectations and set a world speed record in the convertiplane category, at 190.9mph (307.2km/h) on 5 January 1959, over a 60 mile (100km) closed circuit. Despite garnering significant interest from around the world, funding for the Rotodyne was terminated in early 1962.

• AA30_pp 43-45.indd 44

28/01/2017 09:55

FAIREY ROTODYNE

45

Left: In bare metal finish the Rotodyne is readied for an early flying demonstration at White Waltham.

Fairey Rotodyne Crew: Length: Wingspan: Rotor diameter: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant: VTOL method:

• AA30_pp 43-45.indd 45

Two 58ft 8in (17.9m) 46ft 6in (14.2m) 90ft (27.4m) 22ft 2ft (6.8m) 22,000lb (9,980kg) 33,000lb (14,970kg) 190mph (305km/h) 2 x Napier Eland turboprops (2,800hp) Main rotor tip jets using combustion (Fairey pressure jets)

28/01/2017 09:55

46

UNITED KINGDOM

Hawker P1127/Kestrel W here it all began. The Hawker P1127 and Kestrel FGA1 were the experimental and development aircraft that led to the world’s most successful VTOL jet fighter, the Harrier… Hawker Aircraft of Kingston-upon-Thames was, in the 1950s, enjoying great sales success with its Hunter fighter, which was the spearhead of RAF’s Fighter Command and had achieved notable export successes. That said, chief designer Sir Sydney Camm was on the lookout for a follow-on project that might find a

Hawker Kestrel FGA1 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

AA30_pp 46-47.indd 46

One 42ft 6in (12.95m) 23ft 11in (6.99m) 10ft 9in (3.28m) 9,800lb (4,445kg) 17,000lb (7,700kg) 710mph (1,142km/h) 1 x Bristol Siddeley Pegasus 5 vectoredthrust turbofan of 15,000lb Vectored thrust main engine

suitable niche in the fighter market. He became interested in the possibilities of a vertical takeoff aircraft following the development by Bristol Aero-Engines of the BE53 jet engine offering ‘four-poster’ jet lift from four rotating nozzles. By 1957, Camm was refining designs for a suitable airframe that would, of necessity, be built around the engine as the first requirement was that it should be at the centre of gravity of the aircraft. Going against the trend of current fighter developments, his design – P1127 in the company scheme – would not be the fastest, nor would it carry the greatest payload. But it would have the ability to operate from short strips and to make vertical take-offs and landings. With only polite interest from the RAF, Hawker took the plunge to develop the P1127 using its own resources. Early examples of the BE53 (later to become the Pegasus) engine started bench running in August 1959, and the first P1127 XP831 was completed and taken

by road to the company’s Dunsfold airfield on 15 July 1960. Because Bristol could only offer 11,300lb of thrust from this BE53, the P1127 initially had all unnecessary items such as pitot head and airbrake removed to save weight. The first stage was tethered flying over a metal grid to minimise the effects of reingestion from the downward-pointing exhaust nozzles. Chief Test Pilot Bill Bedford made the first hovering flight on 21 October 1960. More followed, these to allow Bedford to get the feel of the aircraft in the flight regime which was least understood ie hovering jet-borne flight, where roll, pitch and yaw control were provided by ‘puffer jets’ at the extremities of the airframe. The flight test programme expanded, with a second prototype XP836 joining the programme in July 1961. It made the first full transition on 12 September 1961 and succeeded in reaching Mach 1 (albeit in a dive) on 12 December, only to be lost two days later in a non-fatal crash with Bedford flying when a

31/01/2017 11:48

HAWKER P1127/KESTREL front exhaust nozzle detached on approach to Yeovilton. Bedford suffered a further crash, this time in XP831, at the Paris Air Show on 16 June 1963 when a piece of grit in the nozzle control system caused the aircraft to depart the hover and make a very heavy landing which collapsed the undercarriage. Fortunately, both pilot and aircraft survived to fly another day, but sounds of great mirth were heard coming from the Dassault chalet. Six P1127s were built in total – XP831 and XP836 plus four Development Batch aircraft Below: The first Hawker P1127 XP831 in the hover during an early test flight. These allowed Chief Test Pilot Bill Bedford to get the feel of the aircraft in the flight regime which was least understood ie hovering jet-borne flight, where roll, pitch and yaw control were provided by ‘puffer jets’ at the extremities of the airframe. Inset: British, German and US pilots of the Tripartite Evaluation Squadron (TES) at RAF West Raynham, Norfolk in front of their Kestrel FGA1s. Below right: Four Kestrels of the nine aircraft Tripartite Evaluation Squadron in line echelon. Although flying the Kestrel presented a whole new set of challenges, its pilots loved it.

• AA30_pp 46-47.indd 47

(XP972, XP976, XP980 and XP984). Later versions of the Pegasus offered the increased thrust that the aircraft so desperately needed. The Pegasus 5 with a new fan gave 15,500lb and this allowed XP984 to fit two under-wing weapons pylons. By this stage, interest in the possibilities of a true V/STOL fighter had hardened and a tri-national (British, German and US) agreement of January 1963 led to a developed P1127 as the Kestrel FGA1. Nine Kestrels (XS688696) were produced, these equipping a Tripartite Evaluation Squadron (TES) at RAF West Raynham, Norfolk. This was a genuinely international outfit. It was commanded by a Brit but had pilots from all three nations, and commenced operations on 1 April 1965 in a blaze of publicity. It suffered something of an embarrassment the same day when XS696, flown by an American pilot and on what was only the aircraft’s tenth flight, swung on takeoff and was written off. Nevertheless, over its nine-month existence and 600 hours of Kestrel flying, the TES proved the practicability of V/STOL operations from all types of airfields and dispersed sites with minimal logistic support. Better, the pilots loved flying the aircraft.

47

The P1127 and the Kestrel were never intended for service use. Rather, they were to pave the way for a far more ambitious V/STOL fighter, which Hawker was working on to serve both the RAF and the Royal Navy. This was the P1154, which would achieve supersonic performance (Mach 1.3 low down and Mach 2 at altitude) with a new and far more powerful engine developed from the Pegasus. The BS100 would employ Plenum Chamber Burning (PCB) to burn fuel in the front nozzles and to give a thrust rating of 36,000lb for a short period. In the event, a lack of commonality of the proposed RAF and Royal Navy versions of the aircraft, cost considerations, inter-service bickering and the attractions of McDonnell’s F-4 Phantom, led to the cancellation of P1154 on 2 February 1965. As a sop, the British government agreed that the P1127 could be further developed to provide an aircraft for service with the RAF in four years’ time. This decision was met with little enthusiasm at Hawker Aircraft, where design staff had set their hearts on the challenge of supersonic V/STOL, but work started on the new variant as the P1127 (RAF). This was the aircraft that would become the Harrier.

28/01/2017 09:56

48

UNITED KINGDOM

Hawker Siddeley Harrier

A

s one popular RAF joke would have it... Question: ‘What is the difference between a Harrier pilot and God? Answer: God doesn’t think he’s a Harrier pilot.’ Following on from the Kestrel, at the heart of the new P1127 (RAF) was a further developed and more powerful Pegasus, the Mk101 rated at 16,250lb. This required redesigned engine intakes, with six (later eight) hinged ‘blow in’ doors just behind the lip. Another obvious change was the extension of the wing tips outboard of the outrigger fairings, while further aerodynamic changes were made to the wing, and a two-axis (later three-axis) Marconi autostabilisation system was incorporated. As befits a warplane, five weapon pylons were fitted, although there was no internal gun; when required, two podded 30mm Aden guns could be mounted under the fuselage. Six Development Batch aircraft (XV276-281) were built, the first flying in the summer of 1966. All were completed within 12 months, by which time the name Harrier, originally proposed for the P1154, had been officially adopted. While similar in overall concept to both P1127 and Kestrel, the Harrier was in most

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 48

respects a new aeroplane and shared little engineering commonality with its predecessors. It was a true warplane and, to reflect this, the RAF designated the initial production variant GR1 (Ground Attack/Reconnaissance). The fit included a Ferranti FE 541 nav/attack system, a Smith’s Head-Up Display (HUD) and a moving map display, while to justify the ‘R’ for ‘reconnaissance’ there was a F95 camera mounted in the nose and the possibility of fitting a dedicated reconnaissance pod on the centreline station. An initial batch of 60 Harrier GR1s (XV738762 and XV776-810) was ordered in 1966. Pilot conversion was undertaken by the Harrier Conversion Team at RAF Wittering, which was to become ‘The Home of the Harrier’. Initially only the most experienced pilots were taken on as there was as yet no two-seat variant. No 1 Squadron (motto ‘in omnibus princeps’ – ‘First in all things’) was announced as the initial front-line unit and was declared operational on 1 September 1970. In so doing it became the first squadron anywhere in the world to operate a V/STOL fighter. It is fair to say that every major advance in Harrier capability over the years was made

Above: With the name ‘Harrier’ newly inscribed on its nose, one of the development GR1s is put through its paces. Flying the Harrier was a challenge and only the best RAF pilots were selected for the task.

possible by thrust improvements in developed versions of the Pegasus turbofan. The advent of the Mk103 offering 21,500lb gave rise to the GR3, considered the definitive ‘first-generation’ Harrier. The extra thrust allowed the fitting of a Ferranti LRMTS laser ranger in an elongated ‘snoopy’ nose and a PWR radar warning system at the tail. The GR3 represented a huge leap in capability, particularly in a single-pass laydown attack. The RAF ordered 40 new-build Harrier GR3s, and remanufactured 62 earlier GR1s to the same standard. Four front-line Harrier squadrons were formed by early 1972. Based at Wildenrath with RAF Germany (RAFG) were Nos 3, 4 and 20 Squadrons, while Wittering housed No 1 Squadron and the training unit now designated 233 OCU. By this stage the RAF had received several two-seat (but fully combat capable) Harrier T2s. RAFG squadrons, in particular, exploited the Harrier’s basing flexibility to the full. The

28/01/2017 09:56

HAWKER SIDDELEY HARRIER

49

US Marine Corps The second user of the Harrier was the US Marine Corps (USMC), which wanted a close air support aircraft capable of flying from unimproved sites, beachheads or ships. Following enthusiastic reports from the American pilots on the TES, two USMC officers walked into the Hawker Siddeley chalet at Farnborough’s 1968 show and announced that they wanted to fly the Harrier. They were granted a few initial assessment flights at Dunsfold, followed by a full evaluation early in 1969. The result was the adoption of the Harrier by the USMC, the signing of a licence agreement for McDonnell Douglas to manufacture the aircraft in the States and a longer-term agreement to collaborate on further Harrier development. In the event, the USMC received 110 single-seat (AV-8A in the US designation system) and two-seat (TAV-8A) Harriers, all UK-manufactured. The American support for the Harrier programme was highly beneficial. It increased the production run, gave the type extra credibility and led to the clearance of a whole range of US weaponry including the AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM. From the start, the USMC intended to clear its AV-8A for operation from ships and trials were carried out in 1971 from USS Guadalcanal and USS Coronado. USMC trials at the Patuxent River test centre included investigation of VIFFing (thrust Vectoring In Forward Flight), where the Harrier’s engine nozzles were rotated in wingborne flight. This allowed the Harrier pilot to make sudden changes in attitude or position in combat and ‘to turn square corners’. It didn’t make the Harrier into a dogfighter, but it did give its pilot another way of getting out of trouble.

accepted overwhelming numerical superiority of Soviet forces in western Europe posed NATO planners huge headaches. The NATO standard 8,000ft runways were hugely vulnerable; one well-aimed bomb could result in two, totallyunusable 4,000ft runways. Only the RAF’s Harrier force, among all NATO air forces, could continue to fly from a shortened runway or from the airfield taxiway, or go off-base to operate semi-autonomously from a flying site in the field. This dispersal capability was regularly practised by the RAFG squadrons, which demonstrated that they could generate a huge number of sorties for a period of days, with quick turnarounds and only a short flight time to the line of battle. All that was needed was a metalled strip of 350m for take-off – a straight section of road would suffice – and a metal Mexe pad for landing. Perhaps surprisingly, the RAF failed to adopt the Harrier in great numbers, and its front-line force never exceeded 60 aircraft. RAF orders for the first-generation Harrier totalled 138, compared with 200 for the totally conventional Jaguar. Thus, however significant an aircraft the Harrier was in the RAF’s illustrious near 100-year history, it remained only a ‘niche’ type.

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 49

28/01/2017 09:56

50

UNITED KINGDOM

Above: A trio of Harrier GR3s from 1417 Flight, which was deployed to Belize from April 1980 to July 1993. The Harrier had a long association with the nation having first been deployed there in 1975 to counter the threat of invasion posed from neighbouring Guatemala. At the time, Belize was part of the British Commonwealth. Right: Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR3, XZ993 of No 4 Squadron RAF.

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 50

28/01/2017 09:57

HAWKER SIDDELEY HARRIER

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 51

51

28/01/2017 09:57

52 UNITED KINGDOM

Hawker Siddeley Harrier GR3 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed:

Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 45ft 8in (13.9m) 25ft 3in (7.7m) 11ft 7in (3.5m) 12,650lb (5,740kg) 26,000lb (11,800kg) 730mph (1,175km/h) – and marginally supersonic in a dive Rolls-Royce Pegasus Mk103 (21,500lb) vectored thrust turbofan Vectored thrust via rotating exhaust nozzles

Right: The Harrier’s unique ability to operate with minimal ground facilities and very short runways allowed it to be used at locations unavailable to other fixed-wing aircraft. Below: A two-seat Harrier being used to explore ski-jump operations in preparation for the introduction of the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier. Designated T2/T4, 25 two-seat trainers were built for the RAF. To accommodate the extended cockpit, the aircraft featured a stretched body and taller tail fin.

Right: A Sidewinder-equipped Harrier GR3 patrolling the skies above Port Stanley in the Falkland Islands. The RAF’s Harriers had their baptism of fire during the Falklands War of 1982, fighting alongside the Royal Navy’s Sea Harrier. Although the GR3 was a dedicated ground attack aircraft, it was hastily fitted with air-to-air missiles to give it a dogfighting capability. Three Harrier GR3s were lost during the fighting, one shot down by a shoulder-fired missile in Port Howard, another hit by antiaircraft fire over Goose Green and the last hit by ground fire near Port Stanley.

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 52

28/01/2017 09:58

HAWKER SIDDELEY HARRIER 53

Spanish Navy The third user of the ‘first-generation’ Harrier was the Spanish Navy, which ordered an initial batch of six AV-8As in 1973. These were intended for operation from the Navy’s aircraft carriers (initially Dedalo, but from 1989 the new Principe de Asturias) and for their primary air defence role were fitted with AIM-9 Sidewinders. The Spanish Navy had a very good safety record with the AV-8A, and was clearly so impressed that it flew these Harriers for 20 years and ended up replacing them by… the developed Harrier II.

• AA30_pp 48-53.indd 53

28/01/2017 09:57

54

UNITED KINGDOM

BAe Sea Harrier Left: The Sidewinder-equipped Sea Harrier proved itself a formidable fighting weapon during the Falklands War. Right: With its pointed nose and bubble canopy, the BAe Sea Harrier looked more ‘fighter-like’ than its RAF counterpart. Inset right: Royal Navy Sea Harrier FRS1, XZ457, circa Falklands War. Artwork © Zaur Eylanbekov Below right: The ultimate Sea Harrier in the shape of four Royal Navy FA2s.

T

he second member of the Harrier family developed, the Sea Harrier FRS1 first entered service with the Royal Navy in April 1980 and became informally known as the ‘Shar’. With both the USMC and the Spanish Navy, the Harrier had proved well adapted to operation aboard aircraft carriers and other ‘flat tops’. The Royal Navy, still smarting from the decision that saw its last conventional aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal retired in 1978, was looking for a fighter to operate from the three ‘through-deck cruisers’ of the ‘Invincible’ class that had been ordered from 1973. The two major requirements were for a radar for the aircraft’s primary air defence role and the need to replace the magnesium in the airframe with materials more suited to operation in the

AA30_pp 54-55.indd 54

salty conditions aboard ship. Hawker Siddeley proposed the Sea Harrier, a variant based on the RAF’s GR3 but with a Ferranti Blue Fox radar with air-to-air interception and air-to-surface search and strike modes, a raised cockpit with bubble canopy and a new avionics fit. An order was placed in May 1975 for an initial batch of 24 Sea Harrier FRS1, the new designation reflecting fighter, reconnaissance and strike roles, where ‘strike’ indicated a nuclear capability. The first production aircraft XZ450 took to the air on 20 August 1978 and the first frontline squadron, 800 NAS, recommissioned at Yeovilton on 23 April 1980. The Falklands War and Operation ‘Corporate’ was surely the high point of the Sea Harrier’s service career; Margaret Thatcher would never have risked despatching the UK’s task force to the South Atlantic if the Sea Harrier

had not been available to defend it. The Sea Harriers embarked in HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes soon found themselves in air combat with Argentine aircraft. On 1 May 1982, they achieved three Sidewinder ‘kills’ against a Mirage, a Dagger and a Canberra. In so doing they created an aura of invincibility that henceforth made the Argentine pilots much less willing intentionally to engage the Sea Harrier in air-to-air combat, thus establishing a true ‘air superiority’ for the Royal Navy. The combination of the Sea Harrier, its pilots, the ski jump (on both carriers) and the AIM-9L Sidewinder proved a success that few – even including the aircraft’s greatest proponents – could have imagined. The Navy’s experience with the FRS1 led it to specify an ‘ultimate’ Sea Harrier – one that would incorporate a look-down shoot-down pulse Doppler radar plus a heavier load of air-to-air weaponry that would include the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Enter the Sea Harrier FRS2, later redesignated F/A-2 (to sound more ‘American’) and finally FA2 (so as not to sound ‘too American’). The FA2 was produced both new-build and by conversion of earlier FRS1s, with the variant going on completely to replace the FRS1 by end-1995. This was surely the most capable air defence variant of all the Harriers. Another distinction was that FA2 ZH813, when it left the Dunsfold line in December 1989, was the last all-British (ie British-designed and British-built) fighter of any kind. However capable, the Sea Harrier FA2 was destined to serve for only a relatively short period. Since it was judged a ‘non-standard type’ in the newly-formed RAF/Royal Navy Joint Force Harrier (JFH) and because re-engining it with an uprated Pegasus was considered ‘risky’ from an engineering standpoint, the FA2 was retired from service in 2006.

31/01/2017 11:44

BAE SEA HARRIER

55

BAe Sea Harrier FA2 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

AA30_pp 54-55.indd 55

One 46ft 6in (14.2m) 25ft 3in (7.6m) 12ft 2in (3.71m) 14,052lb (6,374kg) 26,200lb (11,900kg) 735mph (1,182km/h) 1 x Rolls-Royce Pegasus vectored-thrust turbofan of 21,500lb Vectored thrust main engine

31/01/2017 14:41

56

UNITED KINGDOM / UNITED STATES

BAe/McDonnell Douglas Harrier II

W

ith the ‘first-generation’ Harrier well established in front-line service with both the RAF and the USMC in the mid-1970s, consideration was already being given to a more capable V/STOL successor. Initial American thinking was for an all-new aircraft based around an uprated Pegasus

• AA30_pp 56-58.indd 56

with twice the payload of the AV-8A. Not surprisingly, this was dubbed the AV-16. British plans were more modest, centring on the re-winging of the GR3 fleet with a new, metal ‘big wing’ giving more lift. In the event, the two nations came together and agreed on a compromise design from McDonnell Douglas. This involved the construction of a new, big

wing with supercritical aerofoil section and entirely constructed of composite materials. It also offered more under-wing weapons stations – six rather than four on the GR3 – and more fuel, the equivalent of an extra 30 minutes on station. This was the Harrier II, which would be known as the AV-8B by the USMC and as the Harrier GR5 by the RAF.

28/01/2017 09:59

HARRIER II

57

Above: Invented by the British, refined by the US. Balancing on its vectored thrust, an AV-8B Harrier hovers over the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA-5). Left: Harriers doing what only the Harrier can do. A US Marine Corps AV-8B lands on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge.

A first prototype – actually a converted AV-8A – took to the air on 9 November 1978 at McDonnell Douglas’ plant in St Louis, Missouri. While the Harrier II was to be a collaborative project between the US and the UK, McDonnell Douglas inevitably took the lead, since the AV-8B was essentially its design and the USMC’s likely production run far exceeded that planned

• AA30_pp 56-58.indd 57

for the RAF. Common equipment included a new Hughes Angle Rate Bombing Set (ARBS) in the nose and a Smiths Industries HUD, although differences included the ejection seat (Stencel in the USMC aircraft rather than Martin-Baker in the RAF GR5) and cannon armament (GAU/12A Equalizer in the AV-8B rather than a new proposed 25m Aden in the RAF version).

The USMC got the AV-8B into service four years ahead of the RAF, with VMA-331 ‘Bumblebees’ declaring operational on 30 January 1985. Eight USMC squadrons eventually transitioned to the AV-8B, the type replacing not just the first-generation Harriers but also the A-4M Skyhawk. The RAF’s No 1 Squadron became its first front-line user, declaring operational on the GR5 on 2 November 1989. Two more squadrons – Nos 3 and 4 – were to follow. With the ending of the Cold War, RAFG squadrons concentrated less on dispersed site operations from the early 1990s, and switched to main base operation and the longer-range Battlefield Air Interdiction role. The type’s ability to undertake operation from short strips made it the RAF’s weapon of choice to deploy to Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2004 during the early stages of Operation ‘Herrick’. Kandahar airfield had been badly damaged by enemy action and only short lengths of runway were available until the Royal Engineers restored it to full health by 1 December 2006. The RAF Harrier Detachment (‘HarDet’) served with distinction in Afghanistan for almost five years, flying in the Close Air Support, air interdiction and reconnaissance

28/01/2017 09:59

• AA30_pp 59-60.indd 2-3

59

60

28/01/2017 10:01

• AA30_pp 59-60.indd 2-3

59

60

28/01/2017 10:01

60

UNITED KINGDOM / UNITED STATES

Above: The RAF’s ‘top of the range’ Harrier GR9 conducting a combat patrol over Afghanistan in late 2008.

roles in support of ISAF. For the RAF, this was the Harrier’s finest hour. The Harrier II saw several variants and upgrades. With the RAF, the GR7 introduced a night attack capability with provision for the use of Night Vision Goggles (NVG); on the St Louis line, USMC aircraft from 163853 were fitted to a broadly similar standard as the AV-8B Night Attack variant. While USMC Harriers had fitted the uprated Pegasus Mk 107 offering 23,800lb of thrust from early in the AV-8B production run, RAF GR5 and GR7 were built with the earlier (and less powerful) Mk 105. The final production variant – and surely the most capable – was the AV-8B+ that fitted a Raytheon AN/APG-65 radar in a new pointed radome to give a useful fleet defence capability. Around 100 AV-8B+ were acquired for the USMC by new-build production and by

AA30_pp 56-58.indd 58

re-manufacture. USMC AV-8Bs saw action in the first Gulf War, in Operation ‘Iraqi Freedom’ in 2003 and today continue the fight against ISIL. Export success followed, the AV-8B today flying with the Italian Navy and the Spanish Navy, both of which routinely operate their Harriers from aircraft carriers. With an Out of Service Date (OSD) stretched to 2025, the USMC AV-8B fleet still has a lot of life left in it. On the other hand, the UK Joint Force Harrier fleet, which had been the subject of regular upgrades and improvements, became victim of the government’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) of October 2010, which announced its complete retirement. This led to the final RAF Harrier flying taking place in December 2010 and the subsequent sale of all 72 Harrier airframes, engines and spares to the USMC for the bargain price of £110 million. For the RAF, this marked the end of 40 years of Harrier operations and the loss of a huge swathe of combat capability.

Harrier GR7 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 46ft 48in (14.12m) 30ft 4in (9.25m) 11ft 8in (3.56m) 12,500lb (5,700kg) 31,000lb (14,061kg) 662mph (1,065km/h) Rolls-Royce Pegasus Mk105 (21,750lb) vectored thrust turbofan Vectored thrust via rotating exhaust nozzles

Top right: BAe Harrier GR5, ZD329, No 3 Squadron, RAF, circa 1990. Centre right: BAe Harrier GR7, ZG502, No 3 Squadron RAF, circa 2005. Bottom right: BAe Harrier GR9, ZD328, No 41 Squadron RAF, circa 2006.

31/01/2017 11:43

LOCKHEED XFV-1 61

Lockheed XFV-1 I f you want to provide a point defence fighter, what could be more logical than to have a VTOL aircraft that sits on the ground – or aboard ship – pointing skywards and ready to launch at a moment’s notice? It was back in 1947 that the US Navy initiated Project Hummingbird to investigate the possibilities of protecting the fleet with a new breed of fighters. Following the end of World War 2, the Navy’s complement of aircraft carriers had reduced and was likely to go on reducing. The solution just might be to design an aircraft capable of VTOL operation from a small pad on board a warship of any size, to protect the fleet against air threats. The US Air Force also evinced interest in the study, realising that its fixed air bases with long concrete runways were clearly vulnerable. The Navy invited proposals from US industry and in 1951 selected Lockheed and Convair to produce prototype designs for a turboproppowered VTOL fighter. Both were intended as research aircraft, albeit ones which could be developed into a fighter for service with the US Navy. The aircraft would have to be small and light, given the limited power of the current US turboprop engines and the absolute need to give the aircraft a better than 1:1 power:weight ratio. The powerplant chosen was the Allison T40, which coupled together two T38 turboprops side-by-side to drive a common gearbox. Two three-bladed contrarotating propellers were fitted, the arrangement promising a 1.2:1 power:weight ratio with a fully-loaded aircraft. Fuel was carried both in the fuselage and in wing tanks, while the forward part of the tanks was intended for either four 20mm cannon or 48 folding-fin rockets, although no armament was ever fitted. The first prototype 138657 was taken by road to Edwards AFB in October 1953 for initial flight tests. Project pilot was Herman ‘Fish’ Salmon, whose name was sometimes unofficially applied to the aircraft as the XFV-1 Salmon. The aircraft required an unusual array of ground equipment including a transporter/erector to position the aircraft vertically for take-off,

servicing platforms and a very long crew entry ladder. On the ground, the aircraft sat on four castoring wheels positioned at the extremities of the cruciform fins, while the pilot’s seat swivelled such that he would not be totally on his back for take-off. Lockheed elected to start flight trials in the conventional mode, for which a temporary undercarriage was constructed. It was during a fast run on 23 December 1953 that ‘Fish’ accidentally lifted off and flew a mile before making an uneventful landing. The first ‘official’ flight was not made until 16 June 1954.

Flight testing progressed to the point where transitions from conventional flight to the vertical for landing were practised – but only at an altitude of several thousand feet. The XFV-1 proved difficult to handle; vertical descent involved the very careful use of power, and the aircraft was prone to topple. The promised uprated T40 engine that might have made possible full transitions was never delivered and the aircraft was destined never to make either a vertical take-off or a vertical landing. The prototype completed 32 flights before the programme was cancelled on 16 June 1955.

Right: Going through the motions of strappingin to the XFV-1. Although it never took off vertically, the XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and was briefly held in hover at altitude.

• AA30_pp 63.indd 63

28/01/2017 10:02

62

UNITED STATES

Lockheed XFV-1 Crew: Length: Wingspan (minus tip tanks): Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant: VTOL method:

One 37ft 6in (11.4m) 27ft 5in (8.4m) 11,600lb (5,260kg) 16,200lb (7,350kg) 580mph (930km/h) Allison T40 (5,100hp) Pure vertical take off under power of Allison T40 turboprop driving contra-rotating propellers

Left: The XFV-1 was powered by a 5,100hp Allison T40-A-6 turboprop engine driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers. Right: The Lockheed XFV-1 certainly looked the part of a VTOL fighter, but in the end it was never fitted with a powerful enough engine to allow it to take-off vertically. Right and below: Initial flight testing was carried out conventionally with the aircraft fitted with a makeshift non-retractable undercarriage.

AA30_pp 61-62.indd 2-3

61

62

31/01/2017 13:31

61

UNITED STATES

Lockheed XFV-1 Crew: Length: Wingspan (minus tip tanks): Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant: VTOL method:

One 37ft 6in (11.4m) 27ft 5in (8.4m) 11,600lb (5,260kg) 16,200lb (7,350kg) 580mph (930km/h) Allison T40 (5,100hp) Pure vertical take off under power of Allison T40 turboprop driving contra-rotating propellers

Left: The XFV-1 was powered by a 5,100hp Allison T40-A-6 turboprop engine driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers. Right: The Lockheed XFV-1 certainly looked the part of a VTOL fighter, but in the end it was never fitted with a powerful enough engine to allow it to take-off vertically. Right and below: Initial flight testing was carried out conventionally with the aircraft fitted with a makeshift non-retractable undercarriage.

AA30_pp 61-62.indd 2-3

61

62

31/01/2017 13:31

64

UNITED STATES

Convair XFY-1 Pogo D esigned and built to the same US Navy requirement as Lockheed’s XFV-1 and similarly powered by Allison’s T40 turboprop, the Convair XFY-1 would go on to prove the more successful of the two types. Nicknamed the ‘Pogo’, the XFY-1 shared the same overall tail-sitting concept as the XFV-1 with its contra-rotating propellers, albeit with considerably larger cruciform fins with a span of over 25ft. Because this layout made impracticable the fitting of even a temporary fixed undercarriage, Convair elected to go straight to vertical flying at the start of its test programme. They were aided in this by the fact that the Navy had given the company the only T40 with a sufficient power rating for vertical flight. Second prototype 138649 – the first example was only used for engine testing – was shipped to NAS Moffett Field, where project pilot James ‘Skeets’ Coleman made his first, tethered, vertical flight inside the vast Airship Hangar 1 on 29 April 1954. The indoor flights achieved very little, as the Pogo’s 5,850hp engine created a huge amount of turbulent, recirculating air,

Left: First flight testing was carried out in the controlled environment of an old airship hangar at NAS Moffett Field, though in the event this caused more problems than it solved.

• AA30_pp 64-67.indd 64

Right: Poised ready for another test flight, the Convair XFY-1 looked like it was drawn straight from the pages of a ‘Boy’s Own Annual’.

which proved dangerously destabilising in the hover. The aircraft was thus moved outdoors, where it made its first free hovering flight on 1 August of the same year. Many vertical ‘hops’ were made over the following weeks, leading to the first full transition – vertical take-off, into conventional flight, back into the vertical for a vertical landing – on 2 November. Skeets mastered the aircraft completely; his final touchdown, with the aircraft literally hanging from its propellers, was reliably both accurate and smooth. Whether it would prove so simple to a squadron pilot of average ability trying to land his aircraft back on the deck of a pitching destroyer in a high wind is a question that remains unanswered, as no XFY-1 – or XFV-1 – would ever enter US Navy service. While showing some promise, testing of the XFY-1 was ended by the US Navy’s termination of the programme on 1 August 1955. By this time, it had decided that the defence of the fleet could better be handled by a new generation of conventional jet fighters, capable of speeds far in advance of those achievable by either of the strange, tail-sitting VTOL designs it had backed so enthusiastically just a few years previously.

28/01/2017 10:02

CONVAIR XFY-1 POGO

• AA30_pp 64-67.indd 65

65

28/01/2017 10:02

66

UNITED STATES Left and below left: Because of the large cruciform tails of the XFY-1 it could not be fitted with a standard undercarriage, so it was transported on a specially designed trolley that could also swivel it into the vertical. Right: Take-off sequence of the Pogo. It quickly became apparent that such a VTOL design would not be suitable for ship-borne operations and could only be flown by the most experienced pilots. Landing was more difficult than take-off, as the pilot had to look back over his shoulder to gauge height above the ground. Far right: Due to the Pogo’s lightweight design, and the lack of spoilers and air brakes, the aircraft lacked the ability to slow down and stop efficiently after moving at high speeds. Below: The stubby proportions of the XFY-1 looked far more satisfying when the aircraft was sitting on its tail.

• AA30_pp 64-67.indd 66

28/01/2017 10:03

CONVAIR XFY-1 POGO

67

Convair XFY-1 Pogo Crew: Length: Wingspan: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

One 32ft 3in (9.8m) 27ft 8in (8.4m) 11,139lb (5,060kg) 16,250lb (7,370kg) 474mph (763km/h) 1 x Allison T40-A-6 (5,850hp)

Above: Convair engineering test pilot and US Marine reservist, Lt Col James F. ‘Skeets’ Coleman, in front of the Convair XFY-1 after another successful test flight.

AA30_pp 64-67.indd 67

31/01/2017 11:40

68

UNITED STATES

Bell ATV S

imple but effective, the Bell Type 65 Air Test Vehicle (ATV) was the very first American fixed-wing aircraft designed for VTOL flight – or, at least, the first one to sit horizontally on an undercarriage. The ATV was a light aircraft constructed at minimum cost. It featured the fuselage from the Schweizer 1-23 glider, the wings of a Cessna 170 and the skid undercarriage from a Bell 47 helicopter. Power was from a pair of Fairchild J44 turbojets (as used on drones, missiles and for JATO), one under each wing and capable of being swung through 90 degrees from vertical to horizontal. A Turbomeca Palouste turbocompressor powered small thrusters at the tail and wingtips to provide a reaction control system during hover. The ATV made its first free hover on 16 November 1954. This was followed by conventional flying (with a temporary undercarriage) from December, but later attempts to make a transition (at altitude) were unsuccessful because the installed engine thrust was insufficient. The programme was ended in 1955 to allow development of the Bell X-14.

• AA30_pp 68-69.indd 68

Above and below: The composite nature of the Bell Type 65 might look a bit basic, but the aircraft provided valuable experience at a time when fixedwing VTOL flight was in its infancy.

28/01/2017 10:03

BELL XV-3 69

Bell XV-3 B

ell Aircraft Corporation has experience of developing and producing helicopters going back to 1943 and produced the Bell 47, the very first rotorcraft certificated by the Civil Aeronautics Board for civilian use (Helicopter Type Certificate #1 granted 8 March 1946). Thus, when the

Bell XV-3 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

• AA30_pp 68-69.indd 69

One 30ft 4in (9.2m) 31ft 4in (9.5m) 4,205lb (1,907kg) 4,890lb (2,218kg) 184mph (296km/h) 1 x Pratt & Whitney R-985-AN-1 radial engine of 450hp Tilted propellers

USAF and US Army announced in 1950 a competition to design and build a tilt-rotor demonstrator, Bell confidently put forward its single-engined (yes, single-engined – a 450hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior), twin-rotor Model 200 design. Bell’s proposal was accepted and two prototypes were built, 54-147 and 54-148. The Pratt & Whitney engine, mounted in the fuselage, drove two three-bladed rotors at the wing tips through a necessarily complex transmission and gearing system, with the rotors capable of being rotated from 0 degrees to 90 degrees by electric motors. The first prototype flew on 11 August 1955, but right from the start it exhibited serious problems of stability and airframe vibration. On 25 October 1956, it crashed; pilot Dick

Stansbury survived with serious injuries, but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Several changes were made to the second prototype before it resumed the test programme, including the fitting of two-bladed, semi-rigid rotors. Flight testing then proceeded more cautiously, but flights were made with the rotors at different angles and a full conversion (vertical take-off to horizontal flight) was achieved on 17 December 1958. The aircraft was turned over to the military in May 1959 for the joint Air Force/Army evaluation at Edwards AFB. This showed, after two months and 38 flights, that the tilt-rotor concept was practicable, but that there were many problems (aerodynamic, structural, control, rotor design) that would need to be resolved before such an aircraft might be considered for service use.

Below: Although the Bell XV-3 was limited in performance, it accomplished 110 transitions from vertical to horizontal flight between December 1958 and July 1962.

28/01/2017 10:03

• AA30_pp 70-71.indd 70

28/01/2017 10:04

RYAN X-13 VERTIJET

Ryan X-13 Vertijet T he Ryan X-13 Vertijet deserves its place in any history of VTOL flight by virtue of its futuristic concept and advanced (for its time) features. A small delta-winged aircraft with an unfeasibly large tail, it was powered by a RollsRoyce Avon turbojet giving 10,000lb thrust. It featured ‘puffer jet’ control in the hover using nozzles at the wing tips and was intended for vertical take-off and landing using a trailermounted launcher raised to the vertical. This was painted bright yellow and had ‘RYAN X13’ writ large on it, presumably to assist the pilot in distinguishing it from any other VTOL launch platforms in the immediate vicinity.

The X-13 was not intended to have an undercarriage, although for initial flight tests it was fitted with a simple fixed landing gear, and it was in this form that Ryan’s Chief Test Pilot Peter Girard made the first flight on 10 December 1955. But better was to come. On 11 April 1957 at Edwards AFB, Girard demonstrated a vertical take-off, successful transitions to and from normal flight and a vertical landing back on the launcher, the aircraft hooking itself onto a wire to bring it safely to rest. The X-13 proved the viability of pure jetpowered VTOL flight and the two prototypes completed 136 flights without incident.

Left: Balancing on the thrust of its Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet, the Ryan X-13 demonstrates its hovering abilities before safely hooking back on the landing wire. Below: With its pilot already on board, the X-13 is gradually raised into the vertical in preparation for another test flight. Flight tests were performed by Peter F. ‘Pete’ Girard, and W. L. ‘Lou’ Everett.

• AA30_pp 70-71.indd 71

71

Perhaps its greatest moment came on 30 July 1957, when the second prototype made a demonstration flight in front of the Pentagon in Washington. The aircraft was, though, built purely for research purposes and the concept was not pursued.

Ryan X-13 Vertijet Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant: VTOL method:

One 23ft 4in (7.1m) 21ft 0in (6.4m) 15ft 1in (4.6m) 5,330lb (2,420kg) 7,310lb (3,320kg) 350mph (560km/h) Rolls-Royce Avon RA28 turbojet (10,000lb) Direct jet lift, launched from trailer

28/01/2017 10:04

72

UNITED STATES

Bell X-14 U tterly conventional (as VTOL designs go), the Bell X-14 of 1957 was a small aircraft with an open cockpit and fixed undercarriage, employing many components sourced ‘off the shelf’ from current American light aircraft types. The Bell X-14 had two Armstrong Siddeley Viper jet engines of 1,900lb thrust each,

mounted in the nose with movable vanes in the exhaust to deflect the thrust downwards. It was thus capable of vertical take-off and landing on pure jet lift, and demonstrated a full transition on 24 May 1958. While generally agreed as underpowered, it flew successfully for over 20 years until its career ended with a non-fatal crash on

Doak VZ-4

• AA30_pp 72-73.indd 72

29 May 1981. Hawker Siddeley pilots Bill Bedford and Hugh Merewether flew the X-14 to gain experience before embarking on flight testing Hawker’s P1127, while another well-known test pilot to sample it was Neil Armstrong, who would go on to achieve worldwide fame in an altogether different type of VTOL craft.

D

eveloped under contract to the US Army, the Doak VZ-4 was built purely as an experimental aircraft to test the tilt duct concept, but could well have led eventually to a VTOL battlefield runabout. The VZ-4 achieved vertical flight by tilting two wingtip-mounted ducted fans from the horizontal to the vertical, these being powered by a single, fuselage-mounted Lycoming T53 turboshaft engine. The concept worked: first hover was at Torrance, California on 25 February 1958 and a transition was completed 10 weeks later. The aircraft proved generally successful, although it had a few undesirable handling characteristics, and testing continued at Edwards AFB and later with NASA at Langley. The US Army liked the idea, but in the end decided to play safe and stick with the helicopter.

28/01/2017 10:05

HILLER X-18 73

Hiller X-18 H iller Helicopters was another US aircraft company with a long helicopter heritage, starting with the co-axial XH-44 Hiller-copter (don’t you wish you’d thought up that name?) that flew in July 1944. Studies were made from 1947 of various possible VTOL/STOL aircraft configurations, leading to the award of a USAF contract in 1956 to design and build a tilt-wing prototype as a possible precursor to a large transport aircraft. Despite appearances, the X-18 was threeengined. Two Allison T40 turboprops mounted under the wings drove 16ft contra-rotating propellers, while pitch control at low speeds was achieved by directing upwards or

downwards the exhaust of a Westinghouse J34 turbojet in the tail. Only one prototype was built, 57-3078, its construction incorporating several ‘off the shelf’ airframe components including most notably the fuselage of a Chase YC-122 Avitruc. When it first flew in 1959, it was the largest V/STOL aircraft yet to take to the air. A short hop at a maximum altitude of 15ft took place on 20 November, followed by a ‘proper’ first flight just four days later in the hands of Hiller’s George Bright and Bruce Jones. Basic handling tests showed that the aircraft was stable in conventional flight, and wing tilt angles were gradually increased as confidence was built. During the 20th flight on 4 November 1960

Below: The Hiller X-18 with wings partly tilted. When its wing was fully rotated into the vertical, the aircraft was particularly susceptible to wind gusts as the huge area acted as a sail.

there was a problem with the propeller pitch control. The aircraft entered a spin, but control was regained at 6,000ft and a successful landing made. It never flew again, although a period of static ground testing was undertaken to provide date for the upcoming XC-142 transport, before complete cancellation of the project on 18 January 1964.

Hiller X-18 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

• AA30_pp 72-73.indd 73

Two 63ft 0in (19.2m) 47ft 11in (14.6m) 26,786lb (12,150kg) 33,000lb (14,969kg) 253mph (407km/h) 2 x Allison YT40-A-14 turboprops of 5,500hp each, and 1 x Westinghouse J34 turbojet of 3,400lb Tilt-wing

28/01/2017 10:05

74

UNITED STATES

Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird L ockheed’s XV-4A Hummingbird represented a novel line of development towards practical jet-borne VTOL flight. It ultimately led nowhere, but its design scores high on innovation. The XV-4A Hummingbird employed a ‘jet ejector’ lift system to provide jet – as opposed to wing – lift for vertical and low speed flight. The engine exhaust could be piped through vanes and ducting to mixing chambers at the centre of the fuselage. Here, the fast-moving exhaust flow was mixed with cooler air at ambient temperature, thus energising it, the theory being that the total lifting force would

AA30_pp 74-77.indd 74

be increased considerably over that provided by the engine alone. The XV-4A design was otherwise conventional, although it was twin-engined (Pratt & Whitney JT12 turbojets) and two-seat. The first prototype 62-4503 was rolled out from Lockheed’s Marietta, Georgia plant on 29 June 1962, carrying US Army titling. Flight testing was conducted at the same location, and the Hummingbird started its test programme with conventional rolling take-offs and landings. First flight was 7 July 1962, to be followed by hovers and finally a full transition on 13 November 1963. Lockheed completed its initial test

programme by December 1963, and the two prototypes were handed over to the US Army to continue testing. Tragedy struck on 10 June 1964 when 62-4503 crashed during transition

Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird Crew: Length:

Two 32ft 8in (10.0m) excluding nose boom Wingspan: 26ft 0in (7.9m) Height: 11ft 10in (3.6m) Weight empty: 5,180lb (2350 kg) Max. T/O weight: 7,200lb (3,266 kg) Max speed: 520mph (835km/h) at 10,000ft Powerplant: 2 x Pratt & Whitney JT12 turbojets (3,300lb) VTOL method: ‘Jet ejector’ lift system

31/01/2017 12:42

LOCKHEED XV-4

75

to vertical flight. Its civilian test pilot Bill Ingram did not eject and was killed. The second aircraft 62-4504 was later rebuilt as the considerably different XV-4B. ‘Jet ejector’ lift had been proved to work, but the amount of thrust augmentation obtained in practice was considerably lower than predicted. In the end, this concept of thrust augmentation would lead nowhere. Or, rather, to the XFV-12. Right: In the hover. Vertical take-off lift was obtained by exhausting the engine flow downward through multiple nozzles. However, performance of the Hummingbird was far below what was expected. Below: The Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird began life as a US Army project to demonstrate the feasibility of using VTOL for a surveillance aircraft carrying target-acquisition and sensor equipment.

AA30_pp 74-77.indd 75

31/01/2017 12:42

76

UNITED STATES

Lockheed XV-4B

Lockheed significantly modified the second prototype Hummingbird to XV-4B standard, the aircraft also appearing in US Air Force colours. The two Pratt & Whitney JT12 engines were replaced with six General Electric J85 turbojets, four of these units acting as lift jets. This aircraft crashed on 14 March 1969, the pilot, Harlan J. Quamme, escaping by ejection seat.

• AA30_pp 74-77.indd 76

28/01/2017 10:06

RYAN XV-5 VERTIFAN 77

Ryan XV-5 Vertifan C ommissioned by the US Army, Ryan’s Vertifan was a jet-powered V/STOL experimental aircraft of the 1960s. A real VTOL oddity, Ryan’s XV-5 was designed to achieve vertical flight by using the exhaust gases from its two General Electric J85 turbojets to drive three fans. The two large fans of 62.5in diameter in the wings provided the main lift, while a smaller 36in one in the nose provided pitch control. Two aircraft were built, 62-4505 and 62-4506, the latter being first to take to the air with a conventional flight from Edwards AFB on 25 May 1964. Hovering Below: The two Ryan Vertifan’s built were both involved in crashes, that of 62-4506 (pictured) killing test pilot Bob Tittle. The aircraft was rebuilt as the modified XV-5B with tests continuing until 1971.

AA30_pp 74-77.indd 77

flights followed from June, leading to the first transition in November of the same year. On 27 April 1965, 62-4505 crashed during a demonstration at Edwards AFB, killing pilot Lou Everett when he was unable to pull out of a 30-degree dive. 62-4506 was also destroyed the following year when, on 5 October 1966, its left wing fan ingested a rescue sling that was extended beneath the aircraft (the US Army, which sponsored the XV-5 programme, saw the aircraft as a potential rescue aircraft for use in Vietnam). General opinion among the test pilots who flew the XV-5 was that the workload involved in controlling the aircraft’s flight path using the control column, engine power, thrust vector angle and collective lift made for an over-heavy workload during the transition

Ryan XV-5 (estimated) Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

Two 44ft 6in (13.56m) 29ft 10in (9.09m) 14ft 9in (4.5m) 7,541lb (3,421kg) 13,600lb (6,169kg) 547mph (880km/h) 2 x General Electric X353-5 62.5in diameter tip-drive lift fan, 1 x General Electric X353-5 36in diameter tip-drive lift fan Lift fans

phase. In addition, the large amount of space taken up by the lift fan system compromised the design and added unacceptably to the aircraft’s weight. As such, the XV-5’s concept represented another dead end from a design point of view.

31/01/2017 11:38

• AA30_pp 79-80.indd 2-3

79

80

28/01/2017 10:07

• AA30_pp 79-80.indd 2-3

79

80

28/01/2017 10:07

80 UNITED STATES

LTV XC-142A D esigned to investigate the operational suitability of vertical/ short take-off and landing (V/STOL) transports, the big LTV XC-142A never proceeded beyond prototype stage. By 1959, V/STOL technology in the United States had advanced to the point where a transport aircraft might be developed to meet the operational requirements of the US military. All three services felt they could make good use of a medium-sized transport aircraft in several roles – search and rescue, battlefield transport, Marine Corps assault, carrier onboard delivery (COD) etc. Several companies proposed designs, but Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) emerged the winner, this leading to a genuine tri-service development programme from late 1961. The XC-142A was a tilt-wing design featuring four GE T64 turboshaft engines driving 15ft 7in propellers. Unlike the later V-22 Osprey, the whole wing (complete with engines) rotated up to 100 degrees for take-off and landing. A square-section ‘box’ fuselage

offered a 30-foot cargo area and a rear-loading ramp. This was – or certainly could have been – a viable transport aircraft. Five aircraft were ordered, the first 62-5921 flying on 29 September 1964. With five available, initial flight testing in VTOL, STOL and conventional modes was soon complete and a period of operational testing under Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC) was embarked upon. During this phase, XC-142As operated from an aircraft carrier (USS Bennington, 18 May 1966), dropped paratroops, flew ‘hot and high’ trials in California and demonstrated recovery of personnel from the sea in its Search and Rescue role. There were a few mishaps along the way, but only one of these was fatal. The evaluations came to an end in February 1967; funding was drying up and several aircraft were, for whatever reason, out of use. The XC-142A had proved that a V/STOL transport had attractions for several roles, but there were difficulties that remained to be overcome. More importantly, there were other, cheaper ways to provide the same capability.

LTV XC-142A Crew:

Three (2 pilots, loadmaster) Length: 58ft 2in (17.8m) Wingspan: 67ft 7in (20.6m) Height: 26ft 1in (8.0m) Weight empty: 25,500lb (11,570kg) Max. T/O weight: 43,700lb (19,820kg) Max speed: 410mph (660km/h) Powerplant: 4 x GE T64 turboshaft (2,850hp) VTOL method: Tilt wing, engines rotate with wing Right: When tri-service testing of the XC-142A ended, the remaining flying example was turned over to NASA for research testing from May 1966 to May 1970. Below: Another case of what might have been… an XC-124A landing aboard the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Bennington (CVS-20) off San Diego, California, on 18 May 1966.

Below: Testing underway on the General Electric T64 turboshaft engines of the XC-142 tri-service tiltwing experimental aircraft. During flight, problems with the aircraft’s cross-linked driveshaft resulted in excessive vibration and noise, resulting in a high pilot workload. One crash occurred as a result of a failure of the driveshaft to the tail rotor, causing three fatalities.

• AA30_pp 78.indd 78

28/01/2017 10:07

BELL XV-15 81

Bell XV-15 B ell’s XV-15 is best seen as the first step in a progression which ultimately led to the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey. The XV-15’s tilt-rotor design was notable in that it mounted two Avco Lycoming turboshaft engines in nacelles at the wingtips, each driving a large rotor. The whole assembly, engine nacelle and rotor, rotated to the vertical for take-off and landing; an elegant solution that simplified power transmission to the rotors. Two X-15s were built for a NASA programme and civil registered N702NA and N703NA.

AA30_pp 83.indd 83

Above: The second Bell XV-15 prototype, N703NA, taking off at NASA Dryden during an early test flight. This tilt-rotor research aircraft had a long career and was only retired in 2003.

N702NA made its first flight on 3 May 1977 and achieved pretty much all its aims in subsequent flight testing. The first prototype made an appearance at the 1981 le Bourget Salon, and in the following year flew from a US Navy assault ship off the coast of California. It was eventually written off in a non-fatal crash on 20 August 1992. N703NA was destined to

Bell XV-15 Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

Two 42ft 1in (12.83m) 57ft 2in (17.42m) 12ft 8in (3.86m) 10,083lb (4,574kg) 13,000lb (6,000kg) 345mph (557km/h) 2 x Avco Lycoming LTC1K-4K turboshaft of 1,550shp Tilt rotor

continue flying in support of the V-22 Osprey programme and was only retired in 2003. It now resides at the Smithsonian in Washington.

31/01/2017 11:38

82

UNITED STATES

BELL X-22A

Bell X-22A B ell’s X-22A, which had the company designation D-2127, featured an unconventional design with four ducted fans powered by four cross-coupled General Electric YT-58 turboshaft engines. Bell Aerospace received a contract in November 1962 to construct two prototypes for evaluation; these were assigned Navy BuNos 151520 and 151521. Roll-out of the first aircraft was on 25 May 1965, but several months of ground testing were to follow before the first flight took place at Niagara Falls International Airport on 17 March 1966. This was a successful but low-key affair, with test pilots Stanley Kakol and Paul Miller making several vertical take-offs and landings, while staying at all times below 30ft. A first STOL flight was achieved on 30 June (ducts at 30 degrees) and a zero degree (ie conventional) flight on 22 July. It was on its 15th flight on 8 August 1966 that the aircraft suffered a double hydraulic failure resulting in a very hard emergency

• AA30_pp 81-82.indd 2-3

landing. The crew escaped unhurt, but the aircraft was beyond economic repair. Second prototype 151521 made its initial flight on 26 January 1967, later to make the type’s public debut with a flying demonstration in front of Bell employees and invited guests at Niagara Falls on 9 May. Within less than 11 months, the aircraft had logged its 100th flight, and by end-1967 all corners of the flight envelope had been explored. There followed an initial military evaluation in January 1968, during which all three services flew the aircraft. It is said that the pilots and engineers involved liked what they saw and reported back favourably. The formal acceptance of the aircraft by the Navy of 151521 on 19 May 1969 signalled the completion of military evaluation, although the aircraft continued to fly on contractor testing for several years. Today, 151521 is an exhibit at the Niagara Aerospace Museum, where it is proudly proclaimed as ‘the last major aircraft to be developed in Western New York’.

81

82

Bell X-22A Crew: Length: Wingspan: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

Two 39ft 7in (12.07m) 39ft 3in (11.96m) 10,478lb (4,753kg) 17,644lb (8,003kg) 254mph (409km/h) 4 x General Electric YT58-GE-8D turboshaft engines of 1,267hp Tilted shrouded propellers

Above right: The Bell X-22 had a relatively successful test-flight career and was considered to be the best aircraft of its type at the time. Right: Bell’s early vision of the evaluative Bell X-22 project. Below: Yet another ‘take’ in the quest to conquer VTOL flight, Bell’s X-22 was equipped with four tilting ducted fans.

82

28/01/2017 10:08

81

UNITED STATES

BELL X-22A

Bell X-22A B ell’s X-22A, which had the company designation D-2127, featured an unconventional design with four ducted fans powered by four cross-coupled General Electric YT-58 turboshaft engines. Bell Aerospace received a contract in November 1962 to construct two prototypes for evaluation; these were assigned Navy BuNos 151520 and 151521. Roll-out of the first aircraft was on 25 May 1965, but several months of ground testing were to follow before the first flight took place at Niagara Falls International Airport on 17 March 1966. This was a successful but low-key affair, with test pilots Stanley Kakol and Paul Miller making several vertical take-offs and landings, while staying at all times below 30ft. A first STOL flight was achieved on 30 June (ducts at 30 degrees) and a zero degree (ie conventional) flight on 22 July. It was on its 15th flight on 8 August 1966 that the aircraft suffered a double hydraulic failure resulting in a very hard emergency

• AA30_pp 81-82.indd 2-3

landing. The crew escaped unhurt, but the aircraft was beyond economic repair. Second prototype 151521 made its initial flight on 26 January 1967, later to make the type’s public debut with a flying demonstration in front of Bell employees and invited guests at Niagara Falls on 9 May. Within less than 11 months, the aircraft had logged its 100th flight, and by end-1967 all corners of the flight envelope had been explored. There followed an initial military evaluation in January 1968, during which all three services flew the aircraft. It is said that the pilots and engineers involved liked what they saw and reported back favourably. The formal acceptance of the aircraft by the Navy of 151521 on 19 May 1969 signalled the completion of military evaluation, although the aircraft continued to fly on contractor testing for several years. Today, 151521 is an exhibit at the Niagara Aerospace Museum, where it is proudly proclaimed as ‘the last major aircraft to be developed in Western New York’.

81

83

Bell X-22A Crew: Length: Wingspan: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

Two 39ft 7in (12.07m) 39ft 3in (11.96m) 10,478lb (4,753kg) 17,644lb (8,003kg) 254mph (409km/h) 4 x General Electric YT58-GE-8D turboshaft engines of 1,267hp Tilted shrouded propellers

Above right: The Bell X-22 had a relatively successful test-flight career and was considered to be the best aircraft of its type at the time. Right: Bell’s early vision of the evaluative Bell X-22 project. Below: Yet another ‘take’ in the quest to conquer VTOL flight, Bell’s X-22 was equipped with four tilting ducted fans.

82

28/01/2017 10:08

84

UNITED STATES

• AA30_pp 84-85.indd 84

28/01/2017 10:09

ROCKWELL XFV-12A

85

Rockwell XFV-12A T he Rockwell XFV-12A was an ambitious and futuristic-looking design of the mid-1970s, intended to provide the US Navy with a Mach 2 fighter for its new Sea Control Ships. The concept of the XFV-12 was simple enough; for vertical take-off, the exhaust thrust of its Pratt & Whitney F401 engine (30,000 lb) was diverted to exhaust through sets of ‘augmentor flaps’ in the wings and canards. Here, the airflows mixed to cause a low-pressure area, which would draw in large volumes of the surrounding air from above, thus creating lift. This cunning plan should have produced a lifting force much greater than that of the engine alone. But it was not to be; the complex ducting involved and the interaction between the airflows in fact resulted in much

lower lifting force, and the XFV-12A prototype never managed even a hover. Built at Rockwell’s Columbus, Ohio, factory and officially rolled out on 26 August 1977, the first prototype undertook its (intended) flight trials at Langley, Virginia from early 1978. One statement by the manufacturer early in the trials was to prove unusually perceptive. This was the fact that the XFV-12A would be able to take off with 5,000lb greater payload if it could be allowed a 300ft take-off roll for STOL rather than VTOL operation. This is a truth that many manufacturers of V/STOL types have found and used to their advantage. Funding for the project, which was never over-generous, was turned off completely in 1981, while the second prototype was unceremoniously disposed of.

Left: The futuristic looking (for the 1970s) XFV-12A did not live up to expectations and did not prove to be a threat to the AV-8 Harrier, the aircraft it was designed to replace. Below: This artist’s impression was the closest that the XFV-12 came to being on a carrier.

• AA30_pp 84-85.indd 85

28/01/2017 10:09

86 UNITED STATES

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey I t may have been a long time coming, but the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is now well established in service with the US Air Force and the US Marine Corps, with over 300 aircraft built to date. From a technical viewpoint, the brief was never going to be easy; design a tilt-rotor transport with the vertical performance of a helicopter and the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft. The use of two powerful turboshaft engines (Rolls-Royce AE1107C of 6,150hp) driving three-bladed rotors of 38ft diameter allows the Osprey to take off and hover like a helicopter, then transition to wing-

• AA30_pp 86-91.indd 86

borne flight and cruise at 305mph (490km/h). To achieve the performance demanded has required constant attention to keeping weight to a minimum, and 43% of the airframe is constructed of composite materials. The V-22 is a 50:50 joint venture between Bell and Boeing, and was the companies’ submission to meet requirements of the Department of Defense’s tri-service JVX programme of December 1981. Roll-out of the first aircraft took place in May 1988, the first flight following on 19 March 1989. The Osprey became a very political aircraft and frequent attempts were made to cancel the programme in the light of

increasing cost, the early loss of two prototypes in crashes and the US Army’s decision to withdraw its funding. Fortunately, the Osprey had friends as well as enemies in high places, and the programme continued and achieved some significant milestones. Sea trials aboard USS Wasp in 1990 were followed by a longer period aboard USS Saipan in early 1999. Initial production aircraft came off the line in May 1999, only for the type to be grounded early the following year after two further crashes. Despite setbacks, the US Air Force (which designates its Osprey the CV-22), the US Marine Corps (MV-22) and the manufacturers persisted, and reliability,

28/01/2017 10:10

BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY 87 serviceability and safety began to improve considerably. Their faith was rewarded by the approval of full-rate production of the type in September 2005. The MV-22 achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with the USMC in June 2007 and has now completely replaced the CH‑46 Sea Knight, previously the Marines’ standard transport/assault helicopter. MV‑22s were deployed to Iraq in 2007, and to Afghanistan from 2009, where the type proved well suited to delivering Marines into landing zones, Left: Early concept illustrations of the V-22. Below: ‘V-22 Osprey. Unlike any aircraft in the world’. So says Boeing… and you can see why in images like this. Here a V-22 Osprey is refuelled before a night mission in central Iraq during February 2008.

AA30_pp 86-91.indd 87

often under enemy fire. US Air Force CV-22s fly with Special Operations squadrons in the US and the UK (352nd Special Operations Wing at Mildenhall), its speed and range – not to mention the ability to undertake air-to-air refuelling – giving it far greater capability than the helicopters it replaced. The Third American user will be the US Navy, which has recently contracted with Bell Boeing to provide 44 aircraft, to be designated CMV-22B, for the Carrier On-board Delivery (COD) role, with first deliveries in FY 2020. The V-22 Osprey has already achieved export success with Japan, several other nations have expressed interest (Israel, India, South Korea) and, while nobody should read too much significance into the landing of a USMC MV-22 on HMS Illustrious in 2007, a future order from the UK is not beyond the realms of possibility.

31/01/2017 11:37

88 UNITED STATES

• AA30_pp 86-91.indd 88

28/01/2017 10:10

BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY 89

Above: Combining the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop, the Osprey has established a unique niche for itself in military operations. Pictured is CV-22 from the 8th Special Operations Squadron over Florida’s Emerald Coast. Left: The promise of tilt-rotor technology is recognised today by the Osprey, a flexible multi-mission aircraft that combines helicopter and fixed-wing technology, particularly useful for ship-borne operations. Below: A US Air Force CV-22 Osprey flies over the New Mexico and Colorado wilderness during a search and rescue mission for a crashed light aircraft.

• AA30_pp 86-91.indd 89

28/01/2017 10:10

90 UNITED STATES

Above: In nature the Osprey is normally a solitary bird, but not so for its tilt-rotor namesake. Although the programme has been beset by controversy and occasional groundings, the V-22 remains the world’s only production tilt-rotor aircraft. Above right: Bell Boeing CV-22 Osprey of the US Air Force. Artwork © Zaur Eylanbekov

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Crew: Length:

Two or three (overall, stowed) 63ft (19.2m) Rotor width: 84ft 7in (25.8m) Height: (nacelles vertical) 22ft 1in (11.6m) Weight empty: 33,100lb (15,000kg) Max. T/O weight: (vertical take-off ) 52,600lb (23,860kg) Max speed: (cruise) 307mph (490km/h) Powerplant: 2 x Rolls-Royce AE1107C turboshafts (6,150hp) VTOL method: Tilting engine nacelles and rotors

Left: A US Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey operating with local soldiers in Iraq. The Marines began crew training for the Osprey in 2000 and fielded it in 2007; it supplemented and then replaced the service’s CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. Right: The unmistakable profile of a US Air Force CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor on the flightline.

AA30_pp 86-91.indd 90

31/01/2017 11:36

BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY 91

• AA30_pp 86-91.indd 91

28/01/2017 10:11

92

UNITED STATES

Lockheed Martin F-35B JSF

• AA30_pp 92-97.indd 92

28/01/2017 10:11

I

nclusion of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II brings the story right up to date. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme, which includes the conventional take-off F-35A and the F-35C carrier variant as well as the STOVL F-35B, is by far the most ambitious and the most costly fighter programme ever embarked upon. The Joint Strike Fighter is a true fifth generation aircraft – multi-role, low observable (stealthy), supersonic (Mach 1.6) and with a sensor suite that outclasses everything else in the air today. If everything works out as planned, total production of the F-35 will exceed by far the total run of all the other aircraft reviewed in this issue of ‘Aviation Archive’. The F-35 (B and C variants) will replace the F/A-18 and the AV-8B Harrier II as the sole strike fighter in the US Marine Corps front-line. The F-35B is also slated to provide the ultimate punch (and, indeed, to be the only fixed-wing aircraft) on the Royal

Navy’s two new ‘Queen Elizabeth’ class aircraft carriers from the end of the decade. Lockheed Martin is prime contractor on the F-35, but there is a strong international element with all nine of the partner nations producing components for all aircraft, not just for those destined for their country. The UK is a ‘Level 1’ partner in the programme and will build 15% of each of the 3,000+ F-35s planned. Companies directly benefiting from this arrangement include BAE Systems (aft fuselage and tail), Rolls-Royce (‘LiftSystem’ fan and swivelling jet pipe) and Martin-Baker (US16E ejection seat). All versions of the F-35 use the same basic Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, with the -600 variant (41,000lb) used in the F-35B. For hovering, the engine drives a fan in the forward fuselage via a shaft extension and clutch, with balancing thrust created by swivelling the jet pipe to direct engine thrust downwards. While

Top: The F-35B Lightning II design applies stealth technology manufacturing techniques. To minimise its radar signature, the airframe has identical sweep angles for the leading and trailing edges of the wings and tail, and incorporates sloping sides for the fuselage and the canopy. Left: The legacy of the Harrier lives on in the Lockheed Martin F-35B JSF, thought by many to be the last manned fighter.

• AA30_pp 92-97.indd 93

28/01/2017 10:11

94

UNITED STATES

balanced on this thrust and with low or zero forward airspeed, the aircraft is controlled by under-wing ‘roll posts’ – the modern equivalent of the Harrier’s puffer jets – and by FADEC (computer) control of the jet pipe nozzle. BAE Systems’ test pilot Graham Tomlinson, appropriately enough an ex-RAF Harrier pilot, made the first flight of the F-35B from Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth factory on 11 June 2008. On 18 March 2010, he made the first vertical landing at the naval test centre at Patuxent River, MD. Three months later, the F-35B went supersonic and in October 2011 demonstrated vertical landings onto the deck of the US Navy assault ship USS Wasp, this time piloted by Marine Corps test pilot Lt Col Fred Schenk. The F-35B – American pilots will surely never refer to it as the Lightning II – reached initial operational capability (IOC) with the US Marine Corps in July 2015, when 10 jets of VMFA121 ‘Green Knights’ at MCAS Yuma, AZ were declared ‘ready for world-wide deployment’.

AA30_pp 92-97.indd 94

Even so, there is a lot of work to be done before the aircraft replaces the AV-8B Harrier as the workhorse of the Marine Corps fleet. The UK has stated its intention to order 138 F-35s, which will initially equip units of the RAF/Royal Navy Joint Force, with No 617 ‘Dambusters’ and 809 Squadrons at RAF Marham announced as the first recipients. While the first part of the UK buy will be F-35B to embark in the ‘Queen Elizabeth’ carriers, it is possible that the conventional take-off F-35A might also be procured for land-based RAF use, as a follow-on to the Tornado. Opposite page: The F-35B showing off its carrier credentials on USS America, a sight that will be welcomed by the Royal Navy when it embarks the type on its new ‘Queen Elizabeth’ carriers. Below: The F-35B demonstrating its ski-jump capability for the first time on 19 June 2015. The sleek lines of the aircraft are compromised when in ‘vertical’ mode.

31/01/2017 11:36

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35B JSF

• AA30_pp 92-97.indd 95

95

28/01/2017 10:12

96 UNITED STATES

• AA30_pp 92-97.indd 96

28/01/2017 10:13

LOCKHEED MARTIN F-35B JSF 97

Lockheed Martin F-35B Crew: Length: Wingspan: Height: Weight empty: Max. T/O weight: Max speed: Powerplant:

VTOL method:

One 51ft (15.4m) 35ft (10.7m) 15ft 0in (4.6m) 23,500lb (10,660kg) (vertical take-off ) 52,600lb (23,860kg) M 1.5 (approx. 1,200mph) 1 x Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, 1 x Rolls-Royce lift-fan Lifting fan and vectored exhaust nozzle

Left and Below: Lightning II has been designed from the outset to carry out a wide range of mission types, able to use its very low observable characteristics to penetrate integrated air defence systems and strike a number of types of targets. In a permissive environment, it is able to carry weapons on external pylons, as well as in the internal weapon bays. Bottom left: The Lockheed Martin F-35B prototype. Lockheed Martin via Foxbat Files Image Library

• AA30_pp 92-97.indd 97

28/01/2017 10:12

• SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SU

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Aeroplane traces its lineage back to the weekly The Aeroplane launched in June 1911, and is still continuing to provide the best aviation coverage around. Aeroplane magazine is dedicated to offering the most in-depth and entertaining read on all historical aircraft. www.aeroplanemonthly.com

104 AVA mixed dps.indd 98

31/01/2017 11:19

E • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE • GREAT SUBSCRIPT ION OFFERS

FROM

FlyPast is internationally regarded as the magazine for aviation history and heritage. Having pioneered coverage of this fascinating world of ‘living history’ since 1980, FlyPast still leads the field today. Subjects regularly profiled include British and American aircraft type histories, as well as those of squadrons and units from World War One to the Cold War.

As Britain’s longest established monthly aviation journal, Aviation News is renowned for providing the best coverage of every branch of aviation. Each issue has the latest news and in-depth features, illustrated with the very best photography. Now incorporating JETS magazine, Aviation News brings you the best of both magazines.

www.flypast.com

www.aviation-news.co.uk

AL S O AVA IL A B L E DIGITA L LY: PC, Mac & Windows 10

iTunes

104/17

Available on PC, Mac, Blackberr y and Windows 10 from

FOR THE LATEST SUBSCRIPTION DEALS VISIT:

www.keypublishing.com/shop

104 AVA mixed dps.indd 99

PHONE:

(UK) 01780 480404 (Overseas) +44 1780 480404

31/01/2017 11:19

WHEN YOU TAKE OUT A SUBSCRIPTION TO

MAKE HUGE SAVINGS UK BI-ANNUALLY DIRECT DEBIT

Just £19.99 bi-annually, visit the website or call for details

PRE-PAY OFFERS

SAVE OVER £4.00*

UK

6 issues

£42.93

Europe

6 issues

£49.99

USA

6 issues

$69.99

Rest of the World

6 issues

£54.99 Image: Key Collection

Please quote: AA2017 Close Date: 31 March 2017 103/17

2 E A S Y W AY S T O PAY Order online at

www.keypublishing.com/shop

OR

Call UK 01780 480404 Overseas +44 1780 480404 Lines open 9.00am - 5.30pm GMT

*Based on UK price. See website or call for Direct Debit detalis. Payments are accepted by Direct Debit, cheque, Postal Order, Credit Card and US Dollar check. Payments by credit or debit card will be shown on your statement as Key Publishing Ltd. Key Publishing will hold your details to process and fulfil your subscription order. Occasionally we may wish to contact you to notify you of special offers on products or events. If you do not wish to receive this information please mention when calling.

103 AVA subs SA4 fp.indd 100

01/02/2017 17:03
VTOL Aircraft The Story of Vertical Flight

Related documents

100 Pages • 23,327 Words • PDF • 25.1 MB

48 Pages • 18,147 Words • PDF • 1.1 MB

356 Pages • 109,756 Words • PDF • 1.4 MB

59 Pages • 22,378 Words • PDF • 237.1 KB

134 Pages • 40,250 Words • PDF • 602.8 KB

2 Pages • 692 Words • PDF • 560.9 KB

2 Pages • PDF • 545.5 KB

72 Pages • 22,043 Words • PDF • 482.4 KB

317 Pages • 109,806 Words • PDF • 13.2 MB

1 Pages • 213 Words • PDF • 171.1 KB