Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rockwell XFV-12A  
User currently offlineDL757MD From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Does anyone know of the fate of the only prototype of this interesting yet failed VSTOL U.S. navy fighter.?



DL757Md


757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3563 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.


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Agreed. Does anyone know the whereabouts or status of the prototype?


757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting DL757MD (Thread starter):
Does anyone know of the fate of the only prototype of this interesting yet failed VSTOL U.S. navy fighter.?

It was scrapped.


User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It was scrapped.

Thanks KC135. I would have liked to have seen it in a museum somewhere. But alas, it wasn't meant to be.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3726 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2935 times:

I belive was this was the only supersonic VSTOL until the F-35 come into play.

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2922 times:

Quoting DL757MD (Thread starter):
Does anyone know of the fate of the only prototype of this interesting yet failed VSTOL U.S. navy fighter.?



DL757Md



As I understand it, the airplane wouldn't even fly. Don't recall where I read that, but it was a huge embarrassment to Rockwell.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3990 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2913 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 Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):
I belive was this was the only supersonic VSTOL until the F-35 come into play.

There is a version of the Harrier that was supersonic as well.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
As I understand it, the airplane wouldn't even fly.

As I recall, it would FLY pretty well, it just couldn't take off and land vertically, as it was meant to, so it was abandoned.


User currently offlineBoeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 5):
I belive was this was the only supersonic VSTOL until the F-35 come into play.

The Yak-41/141 was the first supersonic VTOL fighter.

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/Yak-141Freestyle.html

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineBoeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 8):
There is a version of the Harrier that was supersonic as well.

You may be confused with another aircraft type as there was never a supersonic Harrier version.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/index.html

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3990 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2784 times:

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 Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2780 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.

Then again I could be wrong.

-K


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3990 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2771 times:

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 13):

AFAIK, all Harriers are transsonic in a dive (only).
Original plans called for a bigger supersonic aircraft, the Hawker P.1154, but it was cancelled.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 11):



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 14):

Roger. Thanks for the correction.


User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2731 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.

Cheers,

John

[Edited 2007-04-26 17:39:24]


Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3990 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 16):

Hello John,

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 Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineBoeingFixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2703 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.

Cheers,

John

[Edited 2007-04-26 18:47:31]


Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2675 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.

[Edited 2007-04-26 23:07:38]

User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3990 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2654 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)
User currently offlineBoeingfixer From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2646 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.

Here is a good link.

http://www.aircraftinformation.info/art_mir3v.htm

Cheers,

John



Cheers, John YYC
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13239 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Thanks, I was probably getting mixed up with the predecessor.
I've seen the Mirage IIIV, in the museum at Orly.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Rockwell XFV-12A
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rockwell B-1B Lancer At HNL? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 23:08:04 by Squirrel83

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format