JF, thanks - a gent as ever! Your PM made interesting reading and the point about specification writing was indeed very sound.
In my small area of providing a military aircraft system to a couple of customers, I insisted that we involved the end-users at an early stage, to ensure they received the system they needed. However, I also came across engineers who wouldn't listen to the voice of experience - a typical example being 3 functions being controlled by one 2-position push button. They wouldn't accept that this was silly, insisting that software would take care of 2 functions and only 1 alternative was needed. But we've since seen that the software doesn't always work as expected.......
They were the sort of engineers who, I'm sure, would be happy to fit a software controlled fire extinguisher....
Re. a couple of projects about which we disagree:
- ORAC's link to the TSR2 debate reveals Jimmy Dell's comment that initial climb angle (and hence body angle) was quite steep in order to remain below the undercarriage limiting speed. He raised no concerns about AoA and mentions that the aircraft handled well in the circuit and on the approach, concluding that, "as a flying machine, we did indeed have a world beater in our stable".
- Reading more about the Rotodyne, cancellation was due to lack of funding following problems with RR delivering the Tyne in time for contractual deadlines to be met. The RAF was diffident, considering that the Andover would be sufficient and BEA wouldn't commit without a military order. The prototype's noise problems had been overcome by the time of the Battersea demo flight and the production version promised even further reductions. There were
no 'gearbox' issues; the aircraft did not have a main rotor gearbox by virtue of its tip-jet design and the cyclic/collective swashplate worked as advertised. I remain convinced that Rotodyne would have given the RAF vertical lift capabilities in excess of the Chinook some 20 years earlier - and civil flights between a wide range of small regional airports would have been possible.
I do agree about the AW681 though! As for P1154, it could not have been used from deployed sites in the same manner as the Harrier and PCB would have destroyed any 'natural' runway surface. In the end it wouldn't really have offered any significant advantage over a conventional second generation fighter-bomber, given that its V/STOL capabilities were becoming rather irrelevant. So the decision to go for Harrier at one end and F-4 at the other was undoubtedly correct at the time. Perhaps if P1121 'Hurricane 2' hadn't been killed by Duncan Sandys in 1958, the RAF wouldn't have needed to select the American design 10 years later?