I knew Ed Gillespie, North American's chief test pilot and Naval Aviator who test flown this aircraft. Ed told me even attached to the crane at Langley, he was not happy with the aircraft at all and knew that the project was in serious trouble.
If the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 had been pursued, it might have been in service by the early/mid 70's. I think that the high-tec, multi-role escort carrier for sea control is a really interesting concept that still has merit.
Family connections in the Swiss Military believed that they should have adopted the Harrier and, had something like the P1154 had it become available, for their defence requirements. No long runways just lots of rock caverns next to roads with a few aircraft at each location. That said the Harrier would not have existed had the US not put the money in, and despite an amazing platform our Civil Service would never support VTOL and sadly the P1154 was an opportunity lost. The blame lies very firmly with pen pushers who had no vision.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Yes I agree but it still could have been a very capable bomber/patrol aircraft interceptor at high subsonic speed - a sort of Phantom light.
Rockwell was overloaded with projects at the time B-1A, Space shuttle etc . I remember reading that one early concept was for it to use a version of the BS-100 "super pegasus" but this was superseded by the "de Haviland ejector " system for lift and the conventional turbofan. Looking back in my notes from my time in the aerospace industry I see a number of references to the xfv-12 needing a very complex flight control computer which is born out by the complexity of its geometry and its very large control surfaces. If this project had been under the military unit of MDD then the outcome may have been different as they had experience from the AV-8B that would have helped a lot.
it never cease to amaze me how you dig up thoses obscure/unknown designs! I've been interested in aviation history since I was very young and I keep learning, thanks to you!
You've got to talk about the Convair 200 now. It was the other aircraft designed for the SCS & it's the origin of the F35's VTOL where the engine's nozzle is pointed down using a 3 part joint that twists the nozzle downward
@@iiwhatisyouremailprivatenn2470 The Yak-141 uses a similar system that was developed independently. Lockheed Martin (which now owned all the Convair designs via their purchase of General Dynamics' Fort Worth division) licensed all the Yak-141 test data from Yakovlev, since the Yak-141 had actually been built and flown whereas the Convair 200 had not. Thus, the F-35B's nozzle isn't directly based on the Yak-141's, Lockheed Martin just used the Yak-141 to verify that the system would work they way they expected it to.
@@RedXlV It really wasn't as it had 2 dedicated lift engines which absolutely destroy usable payload they are dead weight that have to be carried all the time and would have weighed 250-500kg each depending on what type. Vertical take-off is practically useless with any harrier and they have more spare weight for fuel and armament than the Convair 200 would have had. Lots of V/STOL aircraft and been built and tested but the only useful ones are the harrier family and the F-35B both use one engine. Hell the F-35B is classed as a STOVL (short take off vertical landing) because Vertical take off is worthless for it and even for vertical landing it's range and payload are sacrificed heavily for it.
Sad to not hear the RN’s term for taking out Soviet recon/strike aircraft shadowing a surface force: “hack the shad”. Apparently this became something of a much chanted motto during the design of the Illustrious class. I love the mental image of the inmates at the Royal College of Naval Architects chanting it over the drawing boards: “Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad!”
Awesome video, as always! It's incredible how myopic could be the branch of an army comanded to the supplies combined with the volubility of the politicians. Simply crazy to have spent so much, being already overbudget and not trying a short take of. Some sort of tabù regarding the STOBAR in the Navy (and with that thrust-to-weight ration a STOBAR wasn't maybe even needed...) Rockwell sometimes gives the idea of a visionary company, really unfit to interact with the establishment...
Unfortunately, the Harrier couldn't go supersonic, a requirement by the US Navy. Yeah, I know it defeated Argentine supersonic fighters but the USN people probably thought they would be facing far harder opponents like the Soviets.
It certainly should've been, yes. As the video points out, it was quite a blunder on Rockwell's part to never fly the XFV-12 as a STOVL aircraft. Particularly given that decades of Harrier operations have shown that VTOL is more gimmick than useful capability for a warplane, while STOVL (still allowing operation off a short deck but allowing far more fuel and weapons to be carried) is insanely valuable.
@@jameshisself9324It would have been because that’s why they chose to build their own over getting the Harrier. They wanted Mach 2. If they couldn’t do that, either harrier or keep working their asses.
I saw this thing in a book or magazine when I was a kid and thought it looked like something straight out of Star Wars. I was disappointed when I heard it had been cancelled. Any chance we can get a video featuring the IML Addax? That was a wild proposal.
The Royal Navy had selected a navalised version of the P1154 to operate from its new CV01 carrier back in the early sixties, then both the new carrier and the 1154 were cancelled so the RN ended up buying F-4 Phantoms.
After 1970s the balance had already shifted towards three aircraft companies, with the main aspect that the time to market for their products was long, unreliable and expensive. In other words, what the 50s and 60s have seen in the rapid development of aircraft and associated technologies, has given its way to slow development based on mature and sometimes obsolete technologies (just to keep the productions running). The Rockwell was a result of undecided policies and luck of creativity, though everyone would like this to see it flying. Take care everyone.
As soon as Ed stated it didn't work in VTOL, I said to myself, "But what about STOL"? And, of course, Ed mentioned that immediately after I had the thought. Yes, seems like a real missed opportunity, indeed.
@@ohredhk Landing vertically seems like it'd be less challenging than taking off vertically. You don't actually need enough thrust to hover for that, just enough thrust to come down slowly.
Along with the Avro Arrow, YF-23, this is one of the aircraft I most wish came to be that didn't. Ever since I first saw a picture of the thing it just seemed like the coolest, most sci-fi like fighter I'd ever seen. Would have been so cool to see these flying around of Naval and Marine vessels.
The TSR.2 which was built and flying until the Brits ran around cutting things, they wanted to buy F-111s instead but those took forever so they ended up with fat Phantoms. The Hawker P.1154, the twin engine supersonic super-Harrier that never did get to metal. The Grumman F11F-1F, which would have sold well were it not for Lockheed bribery.
I remember in 1970’s Aviation Week seeing the flashy and confident ads for the future XFV-12- my first reaction was “are they serious? this will never work”.
I think part of the reason for not flying it in a conventional or STOVL mode, is that the design arguably isn't capable of either. With the rear landing gear located so far aft, a conventional rotation wouldn't be possible. Similarly, in order for the vertical lift system to operate, the exhaust nozzle had to be closed off, eliminating forward thrust. In contrast to the harrier, which could provide thrust at any angle from fully forward to fully down (and even slightly rearward), this aircraft could only produce thrust downward or forward. That would make a stovl takeoff difficult and perhaps quite risky for a test pilot to carry out when there was no certainty it could take off at all. I'm not surprised they didn't risk it.
@@allangibson8494 I think his point is that the gear is way behind the center of mass, so you wont be able to rotate the plane even a little bit. It may work with a ski jump, but I am no engineer.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 Canards lift the nose up directly unlike conventional trailing edge elevators that push the rear of the aircraft down to raise the nose. This changes the dynamics of the forces on the undercarriage significantly.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 the difference is that without a canard the main wheels be close to the centre of mass to permit rotation of the tail down to push the nose up. With a canard they don’t because the nose is directly lifted up - and an aft pivot point actually helps with lever lengths. On landing things get a bit sketchier for a conventional landing because the aircraft will need to maintain canard lift (and hence speed) until the nose is on safely the ground to avoid slamming the nose onto the runway - for a vectored thrust VTOL this isn’t a problem and having gear at all corners would make the aircraft far more stable on a moving deck. Canard aircraft do however have 110% more lift than a conventional tailed aircraft because the canard is a lifting surface while a conventional tail pushes down all the time (if it didn’t a stall becomes unrecoverable - a problem for pretty much every airliner designed after 1980 when the designers deliberately did this to reduce drag at the expense of stall safety). The tail stalls first, stops pushing down and the nose drops - the difference in a canard is the canard stops lifting to the same effect. The Harrier used four gear - two on the centreline and one smaller one on each wing tip for similar reasons. With a conventional tail the Harrier had to have one of the main gear further forward for angle of attack control.
Thanks for yet another brilliant story. I used to think 20-30-40 yrs ago I knew (as an amateur) a lot about aviation and its history - I ACTUALLY KNEW VERY LITTLE !! 👍
I remember stumbling across this thing on Aviastar some years ago. I couldn't believe what I was looking at, complete with Navy markings. Thank you for doing a video on this one!!
Nicely balanced video, the XFV-12 normally gets relegated to the same slag pile as the Christmas fighter. I was fascinated with the design after I first saw on the cover of (Wings/Airpower, I think).
I knew one of the engineers at North American in Columbus, OH...... This plane was never intended to fly, but was used only as a technology test platform to determine what strategies were feasible. It was a success in that vane.
Great video! I didn't know this much about the XFV-12. Also, now that you mentioned the original F-14B, could you do a video covering the F-14B Super Tomcat, and maybe even include the planned F-14C?
You seem to forget the Sea Harrier, designed from the outset to be a capable fighter as well as carrying out other roles, proving to be so in the Falklands with a 10:1 kill ratio. One of its big advantages being it did have for the day a very capable radar system. Had the USN seriously pursued the high-low doctrine, with AV8s already in service with the USMC, I suspect that that commonality coupled with an aircraft successfully combat proven against a near peer adversary would have led to an American Sea Harrier rather than this.
He did not forget anything. Did you miss the part where the US Navy wanted a _supersonic_ fighter? Also, you might want to check on the "very capable radar system". The Ferranti Blue Fox radar was considered being one of the worst aircraft radars of its time. That's why it was very quickly replaced with Blue Vixen, but that happened after the Falklands.
@@sergeychmelev5270 The usefulness of the radar is very heavily debated, It's wrong to call it "one of the worst", some viewed it as a great piece of kit, others, not so much.
@@seaharrierfrs1 I’m not aware of any debates over the Blue Fox. Of course it was better than nothing, but name me a worse aircraft radar that went into service even 5 years before the Blue Fox. No look down capability unless the sea is perfectly calm in the freakin’ 1979? No radar-guided AA missile compatibility? Yeah, “debatable”. Of course, if there were AEW planes in RN, that wouldn’t be too much of a problem. But we’re yet to see a STOVL AEW. Those helicopter AEWs abroad QEs are not even half-measures.
The problem with the Essex Class carriers was age not capability. They could have continued to fulfill the role of Sea Control role and provide air defense with embarked F8 Crusaders. The last Essex Class carrier to deploy was the Oriskany in 1975 with a 70 aircraft airwing.
Do you have any details of the XFV-12 successor , a larger aircraft following the design/flight principles that would have been used for transport or in flight refuelling? It was cancelled when the XFV-12 was cancelled, so only drawings, models, and schematics would be available. But even these are impossible to find.
Looking at the comment below, if you research the p1154 you'll find that this aircraft had all that was needed to STILL be a formidable fighter, but politics got in the way.
Considering how well the Sea harrier performed in the air-to-air role, this is a perfect example of people not understanding what they have while chasing something they cannot have.
Which only supports the old adage that one should under promise and over deliver with your product or service. By demannding VTOL performance instead of the "less capable" STOVL capability the Navy forced its supplier to over reach and it failed. This was a hard lesson in the consequence of demanding technology that doesn't exist in the development of new weapon systems. Fifty years later and the Military still lets Admirals & Generals pull design requirements out of their asses with disasterous results.
i think they missed a great interceptor, looking at its layout in general. low weight and high power might have made it work from small carriers alone. carriers grew because the airplanes operating at it grew in first place. this kind of airplane could have been used on older, smaller carriers, keeping the first post WW generation active. or adding converted tankers/freighters to protect the rear off the US coast. as land based fighter, it could have closed a gap while forces dumped the F-104 ditching the idea of a pure interceptor for multi role fighters early on.
Off-topic, but thanks for pointing out that the US did abandon South Vietnam. ON-topic, the cost-cutters in Congress were also looking hard at trying to completely replace the big-deck CVNs with the smaller, less capable SCS.
If you vector the thrust instead of aiming it in the desired direction, part of that thrust will still result in horizontal movement, because it gets deflected by panels. So I think the plane could not have landed vertically, because half of the thrust is always "lost" in pushing the plane forward.
Another smart choice by the Navy was cancellation of this program. The thinking that almost brought us the light sea control carriers and these silly fighters seems to have returned years later to spawn the littoral combat ship, which my Navy friends consider the worst Navy shipbuilding program ever.
I've only seen one b&w photo of this aircraft a long time ago and there was an all-resin model kit of it from Anigrand Craftswork, now most likely out-of-production. It's an interesting aircraft, strange Hasbro did include it in the 80s G.I. Joe toy line.
I have a (very) basic grasp of aerodynamics, so I understand it would have provided some additional challenges. But given it's a VTOL aircraft, couldn't they have added some OVER wing hard points, particularly near the wing roots?
HEY..........@7:38 THAT LOOKS LIKE NORTH AMERICAN/ROCKWELL COLUMBUS, OHIO!!!! They unveiled it just after I graduated High School (just 5-6 miles down the road Gahanna Lincoln HS) Also was there in the plant from June 83 to Oct 87 on B1B sections. Then it was off to St. Louis for McDonnell-Douglas and actually working on the plane that it was suppose to replace...AV8 (B) Harriers. Many fun(relative term) years for sure. Now doing the Harrier replacement........F-35A,B,C variants in sunny and warm Texas.
Let's just say the thrust augmenter wing ended up producing enough thrust there's still the fact there's a lot of mechanism in that whole system that trying to get that thing to work consistently especially back in the day seems very optimistic I don't know if it was a case of let's not buy another foreign weapon system but in a slightly more advanced stage of development (at least the engine the BS100 had been) was the hawker p1154 essentially a Harrier on steroids should have easily have gone supersonic as the BS 100 engine basically took what worked with the Pegasus and added a couple of after burners to the front nozzle called plenum chamber burning and I feel this would have been less risky than the contraption in this video as well as the p1154 enable to carry more weapons. I also read that admiral zumwalt back in the day wasn't particularly popular with the other admirals because they were afraid his SCS system would have taken away valuable funds for the more expensive naval weapons systems such as more super carriers and more f-14 tomcats.
Even with the "don't buy foreign" bias that pervades US weapons procurement and is only rarely overcome, the Convair Model 200 (which unlike Rockwell's design didn't get a prototype ordered) seems like it would've been a more promising option. It's the origin of the swivel nozzle system on the F-35B, but with a separate auxiliary lift engine behind the cockpit like in the Yak-141. This has the obvious downside that the lift engine is dead weight when in horizontal flight, it has the significant benefit of *actually working.* Presuming that the engines would've actually produced the specified thrust (which admittedly has been the downfall of some previous aircraft), the Convair 200 should've been able to actually get off the ground and then fly at supersonic speed exactly as Zumwalt wanted. Convair was also proposing a Model 201 version that deletes the lift jets for use on regular CATOBAR carriers as a lightweight fighter. Though for that role, I think the Navy probably got a better outcome with the F/A-18, with its higher payload than the 201 would've been able to carry.
It's a bitsa... bitsa this and bitsa that... bitsa Skyhawk and bitsa Phantom.... we used to operate Skyhawks with our RNZAF and we have a GR3 Harrier in a museum here in NZ 👍✈️🇳🇿
Another thing to add here; that is the only Jet-powered plane to employ tandem wing, as canards are almost 50% of the surface area of main wing And though it got powerful engine, @ more than 28k lbf with the jet @ 19,500 lb gross weight, it's got around 8,500 lbf to spare. But afterburner not being usable in vtol mode, ducting & complex TAW, final power output decreased; but more than enough in conventional flight
On a particular note here, Rockwell is a small company, with limited resources. Which explains why they shipped it instead of flying the potential brute beast of a Fighter Also, the scs displacing less than 14k tons; 9,773 tons (light) · 13,736 tons (full load) when I checked, it can pass through the Turkish strait (preferably with a bunch of it) with near impunity had it been built & entered service And they're a "good enough" solution for the situation at the time, *& it's freakin' CHEAP!* rather than waiting for the expensive supercarriers to come out one at a time in a long time... So Zumwalt was right all along! On a final note, oh how I wish our Philippine navy could've had some had Zumwalt's plan was given a go-ahead...
Wai-what...? Oh shit you're right! How have I not realized that? It's just permanently stuck off of China though, & with very small aircraft fielded. And your content reminded me of midway Island
the UK's Hunting Aircraft 126 pioneered the 'Jet Flap' technology idea; it did not work. It was loaned to the USA, shipped out in a Belfast. So the XFV-12 did not work either. Zumwalt was right about the VTOL Carriers, but how about the BAeS proposal to put Harriers on Frigates using the 'Sky Hook technology?
This most definitely a very awesome looking aircraft. It is a major shame they never tried to even fly the damn thing. With the ski jump on the light carriers, no problem getting them off the deck. What another huge ball drop in the military industrial complex. Just like you see all the time.
A very interesting project, which, of course, I have never heard of. This aircraft in many ways sounds ideal for current use, where stealth is not a critical need. (As ordnance trucks, with the present-day longer-range missiles) In this given scenario, F-35s proceed deeply into contested airspace, while using the secure uplink capabilities available within air warfare doctrine. A considerably cheaper fighter, with the capacity to add far greater firepower to the fight using standoff AR weapons, or whatever was particularly urgent. The V12 name is also sure to fool the enemy with regard to the engine.
What, in this design, speaks to you of being an ordnance truck? From the description, it could haul either a pair of medium-range Sparrows and short-range Sidewinders, or four short-range Sidewinders. That's woefully inadequate for a missile truck...
It would likely have required months to validate its flying characteristics before it could have made the trip itself, and the question has alwaays been if it would have ever been controllable without a more modern flight computer to handle some of the pilots work.
I can certainly attest to the limitations of fluid dynamics knowledge during the 70s, with no computers or software capable of modelling the forces or movements of either air, or the more viscose, water environments. Leading, to the highest extent, the need for capable test pilots to brave what ever dynamics of the airframe might throw at them. I recall that it was thought this was insurmountable for the foreseeable future by aerodynamicist's in particular.
I find it shocking that anyone would think that a ramp will aid take-off. Its virtually like trying to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps. It can only decrease horizontal velocity and increase the chance of stall or decrease the potential payload.
Before we understood that STOVL was far more practical and provided acceptable capabilities, there were many VTOL designs that failed and were rejected. Even the F-35B is more practical at STOVL given the limitations that a useful payload and range place on a mission.
To cool a stream of jet exhaust is, by engineering definition, to cut the energy of the thrust. For energy and heat are one and the same here, in the context of a jet engine, and differentiates it from a simple desk fan. For it is not a question of moving a gentle breeze, when it is rather that of heating and compressing this gas and expelling it at extremely high temperatures & velocities. Ergo, a jet engine or turbine.
I knew Ed Gillespie, North American's chief test pilot and Naval Aviator who test flown this aircraft. Ed told me even attached to the crane at Langley, he was not happy with the aircraft at all and knew that the project was in serious trouble.
If the Hawker Siddeley P.1154 had been pursued, it might have been in service by the early/mid 70's. I think that the high-tec, multi-role escort carrier for sea control is a really interesting concept that still has merit.
Family connections in the Swiss Military believed that they should have adopted the Harrier and, had something like the P1154 had it become available, for their defence requirements. No long runways just lots of rock caverns next to roads with a few aircraft at each location.
That said the Harrier would not have existed had the US not put the money in, and despite an amazing platform our Civil Service would never support VTOL and sadly the P1154 was an opportunity lost. The blame lies very firmly with pen pushers who had no vision.
The side-nozzle layout is fundamentally flawed from the high-speed perspective. That's why none of the supersonic VTOLs ever built were using it.
@@sergeychmelev5270 Yes I agree but it still could have been a very capable bomber/patrol aircraft interceptor at high subsonic speed - a sort of Phantom light.
F-35B exists now
@@jameshodgson3656 But it didsn't 40 years ago and the P1154 could have....
You have just shown me more of the XFV-12, than I have found in over 40 years. Great work. STOL would have been the way to go.
You've done it again Ed.
I knew nothing of this aircraft before.
Thank you for this.
☮
Rockwell was overloaded with projects at the time B-1A, Space shuttle etc . I remember reading that one early concept was for it to use a version of the BS-100 "super pegasus" but this was superseded by the "de Haviland ejector " system for lift and the conventional turbofan. Looking back in my notes from my time in the aerospace industry I see a number of references to the xfv-12 needing a very complex flight control computer which is born out by the complexity of its geometry and its very large control surfaces. If this project had been under the military unit of MDD then the outcome may have been different as they had experience from the AV-8B that would have helped a lot.
it never cease to amaze me how you dig up thoses obscure/unknown designs! I've been interested in aviation history since I was very young and I keep learning, thanks to you!
That that obscure; had a toy of this as a kid in the US!
Yes YES *YEESSS!!!* about dang time one of my favorite Jets is being reviewed
Thank you for picking this one up, ed! ✈️😄👏👏👏
👍
You've got to talk about the Convair 200 now. It was the other aircraft designed for the SCS & it's the origin of the F35's VTOL where the engine's nozzle is pointed down using a 3 part joint that twists the nozzle downward
The Convair 200 seems like it was by far the more promising of the two designs, but for some reason the XFV-12 was the one that got a prototype built.
Yak 141(??)
@@iiwhatisyouremailprivatenn2470 The Yak-141 uses a similar system that was developed independently. Lockheed Martin (which now owned all the Convair designs via their purchase of General Dynamics' Fort Worth division) licensed all the Yak-141 test data from Yakovlev, since the Yak-141 had actually been built and flown whereas the Convair 200 had not. Thus, the F-35B's nozzle isn't directly based on the Yak-141's, Lockheed Martin just used the Yak-141 to verify that the system would work they way they expected it to.
The Convair 200 never got built so not much to talk about.
@@RedXlV It really wasn't as it had 2 dedicated lift engines which absolutely destroy usable payload they are dead weight that have to be carried all the time and would have weighed 250-500kg each depending on what type.
Vertical take-off is practically useless with any harrier and they have more spare weight for fuel and armament than the Convair 200 would have had.
Lots of V/STOL aircraft and been built and tested but the only useful ones are the harrier family and the F-35B both use one engine. Hell the F-35B is classed as a STOVL (short take off vertical landing) because Vertical take off is worthless for it and even for vertical landing it's range and payload are sacrificed heavily for it.
Sad to not hear the RN’s term for taking out Soviet recon/strike aircraft shadowing a surface force: “hack the shad”. Apparently this became something of a much chanted motto during the design of the Illustrious class. I love the mental image of the inmates at the Royal College of Naval Architects chanting it over the drawing boards:
“Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad! Hack the Shad!”
Awesome video, as always!
It's incredible how myopic could be the branch of an army comanded to the supplies combined with the volubility of the politicians. Simply crazy to have spent so much, being already overbudget and not trying a short take of. Some sort of tabù regarding the STOBAR in the Navy (and with that thrust-to-weight ration a STOBAR wasn't maybe even needed...)
Rockwell sometimes gives the idea of a visionary company, really unfit to interact with the establishment...
When you couldn't recognise the elegant simplicity of the Harrier...
I feel a video on the Kestrel might be in the offing.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters Which one?
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters yes please
Unfortunately, the Harrier couldn't go supersonic, a requirement by the US Navy. Yeah, I know it defeated Argentine supersonic fighters but the USN people probably thought they would be facing far harder opponents like the Soviets.
@@shaider1982 it didnt need to go supersonic
This kind of video is why I LOVE this channel.
Excellent video. This was an aircraft that came about in my formative years before joining the Air Force. Thanks for bring back those memories.
First time I’ve ever heard of this one! Very interesting. Once airborne it was much faster than the Harrier.
No it wasn't faster because it never flew,it was potentially faster though
Theoretically, since it never actually flew.
It certainly should've been, yes.
As the video points out, it was quite a blunder on Rockwell's part to never fly the XFV-12 as a STOVL aircraft. Particularly given that decades of Harrier operations have shown that VTOL is more gimmick than useful capability for a warplane, while STOVL (still allowing operation off a short deck but allowing far more fuel and weapons to be carried) is insanely valuable.
@@jameshisself9324It would have been because that’s why they chose to build their own over getting the Harrier. They wanted Mach 2. If they couldn’t do that, either harrier or keep working their asses.
@@TeenWithACarrotIDK Yep, lots of projects that never flew for many different reasons
Always a pleasure to see you've released a new video.
I saw this thing in a book or magazine when I was a kid and thought it looked like something straight out of Star Wars. I was disappointed when I heard it had been cancelled.
Any chance we can get a video featuring the IML Addax? That was a wild proposal.
Thanks Ed. Another very interesting video. Could a navalised Hawker 1154 been worth considering?
The Royal Navy had selected a navalised version of the P1154 to operate from its new CV01 carrier back in the early sixties, then both the new carrier and the 1154 were cancelled so the RN ended up buying F-4 Phantoms.
I was wondering about that as well.
Definitely not, It needed a catapult for takeoff
After 1970s the balance had already shifted towards three aircraft companies, with the main aspect that the time to market for their products was long, unreliable and expensive. In other words, what the 50s and 60s have seen in the rapid development of aircraft and associated technologies, has given its way to slow development based on mature and sometimes obsolete technologies (just to keep the productions running). The Rockwell was a result of undecided policies and luck of creativity, though everyone would like this to see it flying. Take care everyone.
An excellent video about an aircraft I have never heard anything about.Have a good one Mr.Ed.
As soon as Ed stated it didn't work in VTOL, I said to myself, "But what about STOL"? And, of course, Ed mentioned that immediately after I had the thought. Yes, seems like a real missed opportunity, indeed.
It still need to land vertically. With significantly lower than expected lift on the actual test plane, it was doubtful if even that possible.
@@ohredhk Landing vertically seems like it'd be less challenging than taking off vertically. You don't actually need enough thrust to hover for that, just enough thrust to come down slowly.
Along with the Avro Arrow, YF-23, this is one of the aircraft I most wish came to be that didn't. Ever since I first saw a picture of the thing it just seemed like the coolest, most sci-fi like fighter I'd ever seen. Would have been so cool to see these flying around of Naval and Marine vessels.
The TSR.2 which was built and flying until the Brits ran around cutting things, they wanted to buy F-111s instead but those took forever so they ended up with fat Phantoms.
The Hawker P.1154, the twin engine supersonic super-Harrier that never did get to metal.
The Grumman F11F-1F, which would have sold well were it not for Lockheed bribery.
That is a superb looking design!
I was thinking sexy and ugly at the same time.
Great presentation Ed! I very much enjoy all your mini documentaries!
Please do one on the Convair Model 200. A very interesting subject...
I will if I can get enough images. Trouble with the concept stuff there is quite often very little.
Never seen this awesome aircraft before... so cool looking... love it!
Hence, everbody is sporting F-35Bs.
Superlative piece Ed! Many thanx 👍👍😉
Many thanks!
I remember in 1970’s Aviation Week seeing the flashy and confident ads for the future XFV-12- my first reaction was “are they serious? this will never work”.
I think part of the reason for not flying it in a conventional or STOVL mode, is that the design arguably isn't capable of either.
With the rear landing gear located so far aft, a conventional rotation wouldn't be possible. Similarly, in order for the vertical lift system to operate, the exhaust nozzle had to be closed off, eliminating forward thrust. In contrast to the harrier, which could provide thrust at any angle from fully forward to fully down (and even slightly rearward), this aircraft could only produce thrust downward or forward. That would make a stovl takeoff difficult and perhaps quite risky for a test pilot to carry out when there was no certainty it could take off at all. I'm not surprised they didn't risk it.
It’s a canard aircraft - it didn’t need to rotate the fuselage much to change the wing angle of attack.
@@allangibson8494 I think his point is that the gear is way behind the center of mass, so you wont be able to rotate the plane even a little bit. It may work with a ski jump, but I am no engineer.
@@delfinenteddyson9865 Canards lift the nose up directly unlike conventional trailing edge elevators that push the rear of the aircraft down to raise the nose. This changes the dynamics of the forces on the undercarriage significantly.
@@allangibson8494 In my understanding you still rotate around the center of mass, irrespective on which end you apply torque. Do I miss something?
@@delfinenteddyson9865 the difference is that without a canard the main wheels be close to the centre of mass to permit rotation of the tail down to push the nose up.
With a canard they don’t because the nose is directly lifted up - and an aft pivot point actually helps with lever lengths.
On landing things get a bit sketchier for a conventional landing because the aircraft will need to maintain canard lift (and hence speed) until the nose is on safely the ground to avoid slamming the nose onto the runway - for a vectored thrust VTOL this isn’t a problem and having gear at all corners would make the aircraft far more stable on a moving deck. Canard aircraft do however have 110% more lift than a conventional tailed aircraft because the canard is a lifting surface while a conventional tail pushes down all the time (if it didn’t a stall becomes unrecoverable - a problem for pretty much every airliner designed after 1980 when the designers deliberately did this to reduce drag at the expense of stall safety). The tail stalls first, stops pushing down and the nose drops - the difference in a canard is the canard stops lifting to the same effect.
The Harrier used four gear - two on the centreline and one smaller one on each wing tip for similar reasons. With a conventional tail the Harrier had to have one of the main gear further forward for angle of attack control.
Thanks for yet another brilliant story.
I used to think 20-30-40 yrs ago I knew (as an amateur) a lot about aviation and its history - I ACTUALLY KNEW VERY LITTLE !! 👍
I remember stumbling across this thing on Aviastar some years ago. I couldn't believe what I was looking at, complete with Navy markings. Thank you for doing a video on this one!!
Cool. I hadn't even heard of this one, or the SCS light carriers.
Nicely balanced video, the XFV-12 normally gets relegated to the same slag pile as the Christmas fighter. I was fascinated with the design after I first saw on the cover of (Wings/Airpower, I think).
I knew one of the engineers at North American in Columbus, OH...... This plane was never intended to fly, but was used only as a technology test platform to determine what strategies were feasible. It was a success in that vane.
Thanks Ed Nash.....
Shoe🇺🇸
Love your videos! Could you talk more about the sea control ship concept and whether it applicable in today's environment? Thanks!
Reckon you might be better off talking to Drachinfell ;)
Too bad Drach doesn't delve into post-WW2 ships. I wish he did, but you can't have everything!
@@Jon.A.Scholt True true true.
@@lugenfrankwood5234 He doesn't?! Huh! Maybe I should expand my purview 😀
@@Jon.A.Scholt
Drach is another victim of Nagasaki, lol.
Great video! I didn't know this much about the XFV-12. Also, now that you mentioned the original F-14B, could you do a video covering the F-14B Super Tomcat, and maybe even include the planned F-14C?
You seem to forget the Sea Harrier, designed from the outset to be a capable fighter as well as carrying out other roles, proving to be so in the Falklands with a 10:1 kill ratio. One of its big advantages being it did have for the day a very capable radar system.
Had the USN seriously pursued the high-low doctrine, with AV8s already in service with the USMC, I suspect that that commonality coupled with an aircraft successfully combat proven against a near peer adversary would have led to an American Sea Harrier rather than this.
He did not forget anything. Did you miss the part where the US Navy wanted a _supersonic_ fighter? Also, you might want to check on the "very capable radar system". The Ferranti Blue Fox radar was considered being one of the worst aircraft radars of its time. That's why it was very quickly replaced with Blue Vixen, but that happened after the Falklands.
@@sergeychmelev5270 The usefulness of the radar is very heavily debated, It's wrong to call it "one of the worst", some viewed it as a great piece of kit, others, not so much.
@@seaharrierfrs1 I’m not aware of any debates over the Blue Fox. Of course it was better than nothing, but name me a worse aircraft radar that went into service even 5 years before the Blue Fox. No look down capability unless the sea is perfectly calm in the freakin’ 1979? No radar-guided AA missile compatibility? Yeah, “debatable”. Of course, if there were AEW planes in RN, that wouldn’t be too much of a problem. But we’re yet to see a STOVL AEW. Those helicopter AEWs abroad QEs are not even half-measures.
never ceases to amaze-- the wide, wild and utterly bizarre range of aircraft designs since the Wright Bros.
The problem with the Essex Class carriers was age not capability. They could have continued to fulfill the role of Sea Control role and provide air defense with embarked F8 Crusaders. The last Essex Class carrier to deploy was the Oriskany in 1975 with a 70 aircraft airwing.
Do you have any details of the XFV-12 successor , a larger aircraft following the design/flight principles that would have been used for transport or in flight refuelling? It was cancelled when the XFV-12 was cancelled, so only drawings, models, and schematics would be available. But even these are impossible to find.
Looking at the comment below, if you research the p1154 you'll find that this aircraft had all that was needed to STILL be a formidable fighter, but politics got in the way.
Considering how well the Sea harrier performed in the air-to-air role, this is a perfect example of people not understanding what they have while chasing something they cannot have.
Fantastic content. Well done.
Such a futuristic looking design.
hello I have never seen this aircraft. do you know if is at a museum somewhere. nice presentation thanks. saludos
As a kid 49 years ago I read the comic Buck Danny where they had a whole story about this plane.
Which only supports the old adage that one should under promise and over deliver with your product or service. By demannding VTOL performance instead of the "less capable" STOVL capability the Navy forced its supplier to over reach and it failed. This was a hard lesson in the consequence of demanding technology that doesn't exist in the development of new weapon systems. Fifty years later and the Military still lets Admirals & Generals pull design requirements out of their asses with disasterous results.
Should dig my 1970s Interavia magazines out to find the articles.
i think they missed a great interceptor, looking at its layout in general. low weight and high power might have made it work from small carriers alone. carriers grew because the airplanes operating at it grew in first place. this kind of airplane could have been used on older, smaller carriers, keeping the first post WW generation active. or adding converted tankers/freighters to protect the rear off the US coast. as land based fighter, it could have closed a gap while forces dumped the F-104 ditching the idea of a pure interceptor for multi role fighters early on.
At least the Hawker Harrier could fly.
Wow- I'd forgotten all about this.
This is one of my favorite planes, despite the little problem of not working.
We’ll done! Love your stuff.
True what a great what If aircraft love your channel!!
For my generation, that photo of the evacuation from the US embassy is iconic
For my generation, that image has been replaced by Afghans falling from the tire well of a C-17.😢
That wasn't the embassy.
That is a good looking plane.
Off-topic, but thanks for pointing out that the US did abandon South Vietnam.
ON-topic, the cost-cutters in Congress were also looking hard at trying to completely replace the big-deck CVNs with the smaller, less capable SCS.
I love how the military budget is measured in "Billions of constant $"
If you vector the thrust instead of aiming it in the desired direction, part of that thrust will still result in horizontal movement, because it gets deflected by panels. So I think the plane could not have landed vertically, because half of the thrust is always "lost" in pushing the plane forward.
Another smart choice by the Navy was cancellation of this program. The thinking that almost brought us the light sea control carriers and these silly fighters seems to have returned years later to spawn the littoral combat ship, which my Navy friends consider the worst Navy shipbuilding program ever.
Hawker P1154 What might have been 🤔🤔
I've only seen one b&w photo of this aircraft a long time ago and there was an all-resin model kit of it from Anigrand Craftswork, now most likely out-of-production. It's an interesting aircraft, strange Hasbro did include it in the 80s G.I. Joe toy line.
I have a (very) basic grasp of aerodynamics, so I understand it would have provided some additional challenges. But given it's a VTOL aircraft, couldn't they have added some OVER wing hard points, particularly near the wing roots?
This is one of the advantages of a military alliance. Having allies focus on their own takes on military equipment. Not having to do it all yourself.
HEY..........@7:38 THAT LOOKS LIKE NORTH AMERICAN/ROCKWELL COLUMBUS, OHIO!!!! They unveiled it just after I graduated High School (just 5-6 miles down the road Gahanna Lincoln HS) Also was there in the plant from June 83 to Oct 87 on B1B sections. Then it was off to St. Louis for McDonnell-Douglas and actually working on the plane that it was suppose to replace...AV8 (B) Harriers. Many fun(relative term) years for sure. Now doing the Harrier replacement........F-35A,B,C variants in sunny and warm Texas.
I want a 1/72 scale CVN-65 or its replacement,the as yet to be commisioned and currently under construction CVN-80
Should we put a radar on a AV-8? Nar build and entirely new airframe!
As the saying goes " It could have been "__________
Cheers from San Francisco. Former Crew Chief UH-1 Charlie Model Gunship, Vietnam 1970-71
Just as effective as the Zhumwalt class ship.
the similarity between the American project and the Spanish light aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias is immediately noticeable.
Did it really need to be supersonic?
Let's just say the thrust augmenter wing ended up producing enough thrust there's still the fact there's a lot of mechanism in that whole system that trying to get that thing to work consistently especially back in the day seems very optimistic
I don't know if it was a case of let's not buy another foreign weapon system but in a slightly more advanced stage of development (at least the engine the BS100 had been) was the hawker p1154 essentially a Harrier on steroids should have easily have gone supersonic as the BS 100 engine basically took what worked with the Pegasus and added a couple of after burners to the front nozzle called plenum chamber burning and I feel this would have been less risky than the contraption in this video as well as the p1154 enable to carry more weapons.
I also read that admiral zumwalt back in the day wasn't particularly popular with the other admirals because they were afraid his SCS system would have taken away valuable funds for the more expensive naval weapons systems such as more super carriers and more f-14 tomcats.
Even with the "don't buy foreign" bias that pervades US weapons procurement and is only rarely overcome, the Convair Model 200 (which unlike Rockwell's design didn't get a prototype ordered) seems like it would've been a more promising option. It's the origin of the swivel nozzle system on the F-35B, but with a separate auxiliary lift engine behind the cockpit like in the Yak-141. This has the obvious downside that the lift engine is dead weight when in horizontal flight, it has the significant benefit of *actually working.* Presuming that the engines would've actually produced the specified thrust (which admittedly has been the downfall of some previous aircraft), the Convair 200 should've been able to actually get off the ground and then fly at supersonic speed exactly as Zumwalt wanted.
Convair was also proposing a Model 201 version that deletes the lift jets for use on regular CATOBAR carriers as a lightweight fighter. Though for that role, I think the Navy probably got a better outcome with the F/A-18, with its higher payload than the 201 would've been able to carry.
It's a bitsa... bitsa this and bitsa that... bitsa Skyhawk and bitsa Phantom.... we used to operate Skyhawks with our RNZAF and we have a GR3 Harrier in a museum here in NZ 👍✈️🇳🇿
Another thing to add here; that is the only Jet-powered plane to employ tandem wing, as canards are almost 50% of the surface area of main wing
And though it got powerful engine, @ more than 28k lbf with the jet @ 19,500 lb gross weight, it's got around 8,500 lbf to spare. But afterburner not being usable in vtol mode, ducting & complex TAW, final power output decreased; but more than enough in conventional flight
On a particular note here, Rockwell is a small company, with limited resources. Which explains why they shipped it instead of flying the potential brute beast of a Fighter
Also, the scs displacing less than 14k tons; 9,773 tons (light) · 13,736 tons (full load) when I checked, it can pass through the Turkish strait (preferably with a bunch of it) with near impunity had it been built & entered service
And they're a "good enough" solution for the situation at the time, *& it's freakin' CHEAP!* rather than waiting for the expensive supercarriers to come out one at a time in a long time... So Zumwalt was right all along!
On a final note, oh how I wish our Philippine navy could've had some had Zumwalt's plan was given a go-ahead...
Wai-what...? Oh shit you're right! How have I not realized that?
It's just permanently stuck off of China though, & with very small aircraft fielded. And your content reminded me of midway Island
What's a Signwinder???
It would be an interesting idea to revisit when the US finally realizes that they need to start building drone carriers.
You can fly drones off existing carriers and amphibious ships.
The coolest looking plane. So futuristic.
the UK's Hunting Aircraft 126 pioneered the 'Jet Flap' technology idea; it did not work. It was loaned to the USA, shipped out in a Belfast. So the XFV-12 did not work either.
Zumwalt was right about the VTOL Carriers, but how about the BAeS proposal to put Harriers on Frigates using the 'Sky Hook technology?
They should have used the Convair Sea Dart.....lower it over the side, and stand back (far). When it lands, hoist it back aboard.
Blimey…”The Chieftains”, that takes me back a few years.
Another "I could've been a contender!" aircraft. A fascinating topic, all the might have beens.
The world of what if aircraft so many got so close.
This most definitely a very awesome looking aircraft. It is a major shame they never tried to even fly the damn thing. With the ski jump on the light carriers, no problem getting them off the deck. What another huge ball drop in the military industrial complex. Just like you see all the time.
A very interesting project, which, of course, I have never heard of. This aircraft in many ways sounds ideal for current use, where stealth is not a critical need. (As ordnance trucks, with the present-day longer-range missiles) In this given scenario, F-35s proceed deeply into contested airspace, while using the secure uplink capabilities available within air warfare doctrine. A considerably cheaper fighter, with the capacity to add far greater firepower to the fight using standoff AR weapons, or whatever was particularly urgent. The V12 name is also sure to fool the enemy with regard to the engine.
What, in this design, speaks to you of being an ordnance truck? From the description, it could haul either a pair of medium-range Sparrows and short-range Sidewinders, or four short-range Sidewinders. That's woefully inadequate for a missile truck...
I'm surprised rockwell kept their blinkers on and didn't fly the plane. Missed an opportunity
It would likely have required months to validate its flying characteristics before it could have made the trip itself, and the question has alwaays been if it would have ever been controllable without a more modern flight computer to handle some of the pilots work.
I can certainly attest to the limitations of fluid dynamics knowledge during the 70s, with no computers or software capable of modelling the forces or movements of either air, or the more viscose, water environments. Leading, to the highest extent, the need for capable test pilots to brave what ever dynamics of the airframe might throw at them. I recall that it was thought this was insurmountable for the foreseeable future by aerodynamicist's in particular.
Meanwhile, Hawker designed the P1214 Harrier II, which was supposed to be a supersonic Vertical takeoff fighter, an upgrade to the original Harrier….
Another road not taken.
La cabina es de un A-4 SKYHAWK?????
The Covair Sea Dart supersonic seaplane would only need support ships, and land at sea, lakes, or artificial sea ports.
As usual an underpowered engine kills a fascinating plane.
Never heard of that abomination......and I thought I knew a lot....
Seems fitting that Zumwalt had a crappy class of ship named after him 🤣😂.
Incredible design blast from the past probably in ways would become the lilium jet of the future.
Nobody is talking shot how good this thing looks like. The XFV-12 looks like it was wasn’t made to fly in just our atmosphere.
I find it shocking that anyone would think that a ramp will aid take-off.
Its virtually like trying to pick yourself up by your own bootstraps.
It can only decrease horizontal velocity and increase the chance of stall
or decrease the potential payload.
It actually works, and almost in an almost complete opposite manner of your points.
Before we understood that STOVL was far more practical and provided acceptable capabilities, there were many VTOL designs that failed and were rejected. Even the F-35B is more practical at STOVL given the limitations that a useful payload and range place on a mission.
1) it was a little too early, a few years later and it could have had stability systems akin the AV-8B and 10000 lb more dry thrust.
Omg I'm here because of that video by BlackTail.
To cool a stream of jet exhaust is, by engineering definition, to cut the energy of the thrust. For energy and heat are one and the same here, in the context of a jet engine, and differentiates it from a simple desk fan. For it is not a question of moving a gentle breeze, when it is rather that of heating and compressing this gas and expelling it at extremely high temperatures & velocities. Ergo, a jet engine or turbine.