Typhoon ground refeulling trial photos 1998
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest, what happened to the EAP airframes?
When the prog was called the ACA, there were plans for flying more than one. When it was restyled EAP, the number was cut down to one. It is on loan at Loughborough.
S42, your local pub experten is way off the mark. EAP was far removed from ACA, but was the prototype EFA, although it didn't look exactly the same, but,- look at the P1A and the Lightning! There was no project EAP, just the one demonstrator.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel41 "**THREAD CREEP ALERT**
22 years since EAP? Time flies and all that.
However: when I asked a BAe bloke who'd worked on said EAP, he said that it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c, and that the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.
Anyone out there able to shed more light?
Many thanks,
S41"
Squirrel, Take a close look at the fin for starters.
22 years since EAP? Time flies and all that.
However: when I asked a BAe bloke who'd worked on said EAP, he said that it was millions of miles away from being a production combat a/c, and that the fuselage structure was actually based on a Tonka.
Anyone out there able to shed more light?
Many thanks,
S41"
Squirrel, Take a close look at the fin for starters.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fishtailed,
Mr B's statement about the AAR flow-rate into Typhoon is not "shiiite". It is a well-known fact that Typhoon takes fuel at a lower rate than just about any other receiver. The rate is about a quarter of that into equivalent American designed aircraft.
There is a widely-held assumption that this flaw must exist because AAR was an afterthought that forced the fuel system designers to use complex narrow-diameter pipework, giving a slow rate of onload. The grounds for such an assumption may be rooted in the idea that Typhoon was primarily intended for RAFG, which did not use AAR in their warplans.
However, you appear to have some inside knowledge of the design and manufacture of this aircraft type and have stated that AAR system was not an afterthought, implying that it functions as was intended from the outset. If that is true, then you have demolished the excuse for the performance of this system and indicted the designers for saddling the aircraft with a feature that is markedly inferior to that fitted in comparable aircaft. It is possible that the designers may have had to work within tighter constraints of space and weight than those who plumbed, for example, the F/A-18 but that can only be indicative of the lack of importance placed on the perfomance of the AAR system - which returns us to the original premise of Mr B's assertion.
It may not have been an afterthought - but it sure looks like one.
Mr B's statement about the AAR flow-rate into Typhoon is not "shiiite". It is a well-known fact that Typhoon takes fuel at a lower rate than just about any other receiver. The rate is about a quarter of that into equivalent American designed aircraft.
There is a widely-held assumption that this flaw must exist because AAR was an afterthought that forced the fuel system designers to use complex narrow-diameter pipework, giving a slow rate of onload. The grounds for such an assumption may be rooted in the idea that Typhoon was primarily intended for RAFG, which did not use AAR in their warplans.
However, you appear to have some inside knowledge of the design and manufacture of this aircraft type and have stated that AAR system was not an afterthought, implying that it functions as was intended from the outset. If that is true, then you have demolished the excuse for the performance of this system and indicted the designers for saddling the aircraft with a feature that is markedly inferior to that fitted in comparable aircaft. It is possible that the designers may have had to work within tighter constraints of space and weight than those who plumbed, for example, the F/A-18 but that can only be indicative of the lack of importance placed on the perfomance of the AAR system - which returns us to the original premise of Mr B's assertion.
It may not have been an afterthought - but it sure looks like one.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wichita, USA
Age: 61
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rate is about a quarter of that into equivalent American designed aircraft.
But I suspect that I do know why the Typhoon AAR capability is apparently slower than say a Tornado, Harrier or Jag, but I don't think an open forum is the place to discuss it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I said "equivalent aircraft" that's exactly what I meant - ie fourth generation fighters like F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.
I also do not know the AAR onload rates of the latest American fifth+ generation fighters, but I'd wager that they not as puny as that of Typhoon. US aircraft have consistently demonstrated a better AAR onload rate when compared to those of European origin. For USAF aircraft this is probably explained by the inherent nature of the boom system, where the high flow rates must be properly utilized to minimize the disadvantage of the single dispense point. USN aircraft also exhibit much better onload rates than other probe receivers and I would guess that the nature of blue-water ops, using an single-point emergency terminal tanker, causes the AAR characteristics of their aircraft to assume greater significance than it does to Europeans.
You have alluded to a specific reason for Typhoon achieving such a low rate, which I think I have already heard about. However, this reason seems to me to be another example of designers coming-up with a clever solution for one specific scenario, which then proves to be a limitation in many other ways. Another example of this kind of thinking is the omission of an ILS system from some military aircraft in order to save weight. I can only imagine that the basis of such an idea was that all-weather recovery to military bases would normally be achieved by GCA or other methods. Of course, in the real world, such aircraft often need to use civilian airports or foreign military bases where ILS is the primary aid and are forever handicapped by the narrow view of those involved in the original procurement.
I don't believe that the low AAR rate is in any way a significant enough factor to be regarded as Typhoon's Achilles heel, and hope that the underlying reason for it does indeed give the aircraft many other advantages. However, the fact remains that a low AAR rate can only be a weakness and is clearly something that has been compromised in this design to allow priority for other characteristics.
I also do not know the AAR onload rates of the latest American fifth+ generation fighters, but I'd wager that they not as puny as that of Typhoon. US aircraft have consistently demonstrated a better AAR onload rate when compared to those of European origin. For USAF aircraft this is probably explained by the inherent nature of the boom system, where the high flow rates must be properly utilized to minimize the disadvantage of the single dispense point. USN aircraft also exhibit much better onload rates than other probe receivers and I would guess that the nature of blue-water ops, using an single-point emergency terminal tanker, causes the AAR characteristics of their aircraft to assume greater significance than it does to Europeans.
You have alluded to a specific reason for Typhoon achieving such a low rate, which I think I have already heard about. However, this reason seems to me to be another example of designers coming-up with a clever solution for one specific scenario, which then proves to be a limitation in many other ways. Another example of this kind of thinking is the omission of an ILS system from some military aircraft in order to save weight. I can only imagine that the basis of such an idea was that all-weather recovery to military bases would normally be achieved by GCA or other methods. Of course, in the real world, such aircraft often need to use civilian airports or foreign military bases where ILS is the primary aid and are forever handicapped by the narrow view of those involved in the original procurement.
I don't believe that the low AAR rate is in any way a significant enough factor to be regarded as Typhoon's Achilles heel, and hope that the underlying reason for it does indeed give the aircraft many other advantages. However, the fact remains that a low AAR rate can only be a weakness and is clearly something that has been compromised in this design to allow priority for other characteristics.
