DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2769 times:
Nothing....they cancelled the project when it failed to perform and other options were more appealling to a shrinking budget for the Navy. Rockwell could not support it internally, so they took what they learned and moved onwards.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2119 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5): I belive was this was the only supersonic VSTOL until the F-35 come into play.
I don't know if they could do STOL rather than than VTOL, and if you insist on that, but the Mirage IIIV and original MiG-23 VTOL aircraft were both Mach 2 capable.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
KevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 weeks ago) and read 1986 times:
Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 11): You may be confused with another aircraft type as there was never a supersonic Harrier version
I'm almost positive that the British had a Sea Harrier that could do something on the order of mach 1.1. IIRC it was the same version that had the Fox radar.
BoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 10):
The Yak-41/141 was the first supersonic VTOL fighter.
Not really.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 7):
the Mirage IIIV and original MiG-23 VTOL aircraft were both Mach 2 capable.
Peter
If you take the fact that neither the Mirage IIIV (2 built, 1 crashed) or the Ye-23 (or Ye-230 or Mig-23DPD.. only 1 built) prototypes went beyond the test stage, I still maintain the Yak-41/141 was the first true supersonic VTOL fighter due to limited production, although it was not successful in service.
In fact the Mig-23DPD was not a true VTOL and still required a takeoff roll to get airborne and a rolling landing as well which made it a STOL aircraft.
I didn''t realize the Yak-141 was produced in any numbers. But it didn't get beyond the test stage either, or? You may argue this was because of the implosion of the USSR, but still - it didn't make it.
I also didn't realize that the MiG was a STOL aircraft, thanks! What about the Mirage IIIV, do you know?
Cheers
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
BoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1909 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 17): I also didn't realize that the MiG was a STOL aircraft, thanks! What about the Mirage IIIV, do you know?
Hi Peter,
The Mirage IIIV was a true VTOL aircraft. As a side note, it was never able to do a vertical takeoff AND go supersonic during the same flight due to fuel restrictions imposed by the eight lift engines. It was either one or the other with the Mirage IIIV but never both together. The Yak-41/141 was the first to do a full transition Vertical takeoff/horizontal Supersonic flight/Vertical landing.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1881 times:
Are we sure Mirage IIIIV could go supersonic in any flight mode? I remember reading once it was subsonic, though this could be the prototype only.
In any case, until the Lift Fan pioneered on the X-35, clustered lift engines as proposed by many in the 50's and 60's, was a poor way to go about things.
Vectored Thrust as pioneered by the Kestrel/P.1127/Harrier, had performance limitations of course, but it worked.
Better yet, this basic version worked for off base deployment, the whole point of land based VSTOL surely?
From the F-111 thread;
Across the Atlantic, the planned P.1154 supersonic VSTOL aircraft-intended as the first operational VSTOL type, was also to be joint service.
The Navy were not happy, they wanted two engines, two crew, a bigger wing, long range air to air CW radar.
The RAF wanted a low level strike aircraft, smaller wing for better low level ride, a small TFR radar and attack based avionic system, just the one big BS.100 engine (which was built and tested), would do.
It got as far as R/R (the then rival to Bristol Siddeley who made the BS.100), proposing twin Speys, modified for vectored thrust, with a complex cross over arrangement in the event of single engine failure, with weight/space penalties and a doubtful ability to allow a return to carrier with one engine out.
As well as still being a catapult launched aircraft, though the landing would not need arrester wires.
In the end, the RN got it's coveted F-4's, making the sole RAF P.1154 version less affordable.
But this would have likely needed special operating surfaces, what with the heat from the big engine, as well as hot gas ingestion and exhaust induced fuselage heat and vibration issues.
Rather missing the whole point of land based VSTOL.
So the RAF got F-4's too, what was to be called the 'Harrier', the P.1154, was axed during the early stages of first prototype construction.
What was the Kestral, the small VSTOL technology demonstator, was adapted and became the Harrier for the RAF.
Which later by default, the RN got.
It was a UK F-111, VSTOL style, or an attempt to do a 'JSF' before the technology was really there, 35 years before.
Cancelling it was really a wise move.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1860 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 19): It was a UK F-111, VSTOL style,
Reminds me of the Fokker-Republic D.24 Lancer design of 1962, which was to have had both VTOL and varable geometry - obviously madness. Although I really Iove the ancient Fokker D-for-biplane designation.
Quoting GDB (Reply 19): Are we sure Mirage IIIIV could go supersonic in any flight mode?
Yes, that is, according to Wikipedia it reached Mach 2.04 in September 1966 although without having taken off vertically as John has said. It was preceded by something subsonic called the Balzac.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Boeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 19): Are we sure Mirage IIIIV could go supersonic in any flight mode? I remember reading once it was subsonic, though this could be the prototype only.
Yes we are. There were only two Mirage IIIV prototypes built. The first one attained a max speed of Mach 1.35 and the second aircraft attained Mach 2.03 with the larger TF-30 engine.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1555 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 490 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
