Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

dov

Eurofighter

Recommended Posts

Hallo

Today I want to make some remarks on the famous Eurofighter. This aircraft is the famous newspaper a/c, since headlines are a constant accompany in this a/c life. It is comparable with the public life of the F-104 Starfighter.

Anyway, the history of its design dates back to the 1980s to Israel. The Lavi was born. I was eyewitness of her maiden flight. This outstanding fighter. The US prohibited any further development or production to Israel. The US acted and acts the same way as the Catholic Church in the Middle Age. To prohibit knowledge to the common people. So, the drawings and calculation were sold to China. Their derivate was the Chengdu J-10. This a/c has a very familiar shape to the Eurofighter. Here I show you my model. The photos from the Lavi I made during a visit at Hazerim.

Here ends the story of the Lavi and the melting design to the EF. In between just the J-10.

Only one component of the EF is superior. This is the power plant. It is very well explained in a book (just for insiders to read!). The book is from K. Bauerfeind; Steuerung und Regelung der Turbotriebwerke. This book tells you all about the shortcomings in the F-100 power plant family too.

As conclusion I can formulate that each nation may have good designs and a/c. Some are more capable as others. Some pay money to silence their opponent, but they are not better, just short sighted!

Note:

The air intake of the J-10 is more sophisticated as the EF.

The weapon load of Python 3 missile!

Happy modelling

 

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the twin-engined EF2000/Typhoon was developed directly from the twin-engined BAE EAP which flew before the single-engined Lavi, there really is no lineage between the Lavi and the EF2000. The EF2000 was/is a four-nation design British/Italian/German/Spanish drawing upon the engineering and skills of these countries and nowhere else.

 

If an lineage can be drawn, it's between the F16 and the Lavi.

 

Nice model however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fairer to say that the US refused to hand over huge sums of money to Israel in order for them to create and sell a derivative of US technology in competition.  EF2000 came from a merger of the P110 and the TKF90 -Lavi looks (if anything) more like a derivative of the TKF.  The EAP was something of a sideways step but a highly valuable technology demonstrator - see also ACA.  This configuration, and combinations of technologies, was floating around pretty well everywhere at this time - see also Rafale, Gripen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the EF-2000 derived from the Agile Combat Aircraft program which was a development from the lessons learned with the P-110 Jaguar Replacement.

Edited by whiskey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo

The twin-engined BAE EAP and the Lavi both had their maiden flight in 1986.

The technology at this time available found their way to the Lavi, Rafale and Grippen. But the design documents were sold to China. The result is the J-10. Very close in appearance to the EF.

The apportion of the Lavi project I see different to Graham. Since Israel made so much contribution to get along with Soviet radar technology and did so much in the development in other weapon technologies, my point of view is very different.

Uncle Sam did not have anything like the Lavi in shelf, but Uncle Sam forced Israel to buy a secondary weapon. Ignoring the actual security situation. This is the point, which is overseen.

Happy modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Agent K said:

 

If an lineage can be drawn, it's between the F16 and the Lavi


I thought that too as soon as I saw that picture of it. Intake, canopy, radome and tail look like they came from or modded f-16 parts. 
 

@dov nice model though! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more light reading on this and it's been a subject of discussion before within the world political and intelligence stages.

 

However the aircraft definitely has more roots in the F-16 than the Eurofighter and I believe making the opposite argument is pointless.

 

https://www.wrmea.org/007-april/has-israels-u.s.-funded-lavi-jet-been-reborn-as-chinas-j-10-warplane.html

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-j-10-vigorous-dragon-did-israel-help-build-deadly-fighter-80136

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also invidious to compare Typhoon with the F-104: so far, thankfully, Typhoon losses have been minimal although I believe that the crew of a Spanish example have perished.  The F-104 however very quickly earned itself an unenviable reputation as a widiw-makee, partly due to its operation in an environment for which it was never designed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting discussion here!

 

wow, you witnessed its first flight! surely for a good reason I assume! enlighten us! :) 

 

what I would like to know is the intake design! you state that the J-10 has a superior design to what ? the EF? or the LAVI?  The J10 is out there with 2 different intake designs, one is similar to the LAVI concept it seems, one is a diverter-less, some say F-35 derived/inspired design.

the EF has a movable intake ramp for optimsed super sonic performance I'd say. It is also the only one of the obove designs to be capable of Mach2.. supposedly for that reason...

The PW engine design for the LAVI by the way is also a very interesting story!

 

PS: the IDF finally got their LAVI, in the form of the M346 :D

 

PPS: I have a EF, and a J-10 double build somewhere here in this forum, and resemblance is striking at times! I also have a resin LAVI somewhere in the stash of things to be tackled once the right spirit is there... and a lot is needed in this case, believe me!

 

Greatings from Styria, still EF country :devil: 

ABzHAPd.jpg

tAZwuwK.jpg

 

 

Edited by exdraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet everyone knows someone who cannot tell a Spitfire from a Hurricane.

 

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 8:14 AM, Britman said:

I bet everyone knows someone who cannot tell a Spitfire from a Hurricane.

:D

What are those?

Israeli or Chinese designs?

 

More serious, those designs all are basically the same if you only look at wing and motor location ... you camn add endless numbers of WWII typs to those 2.....

 

But back to topic, I'd like to see a J-10 at an airshow...

Rafale, Gripen, EF, F-16, F/A-18 all fly very distinctively, irrespective of pilot or air force!

Edited by exdraken
Spelling caos!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Strangelove or How I learned to stop worrying and love Close Coupled Canards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been having these comparison discussions for decades 😂

 

Just because something looks like something else doesn't mean there's a connection. Usually it's because the same design problem leads to similar solutions.

 

On the other hand, Lockheed Martin should probably vet their design team a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo again

·        If an lineage can be drawn, it's between the F16 and the Lavi

My statement is: No, because it is to my knowledge, that it is the wing which makes an a/c and not the fuselage. Just in short terms. Is apparently the same, but not in reality by facts.

·        Comparison Typhoon with the F-104

It was just done in the fact of media presence. That is all.

·        The J10 is out there with 2 different intake designs, one is similar to the LAVI concept it seems, one is a diverter-less, some say F-35 derived/inspired design.

Correct. The new design according to F-35 minimizes drag and radar cross section.

Happy modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Flankerman said:

Let's throw in the 1960's MiG Ye-8 just for a laugh.....

 

spacer.png

 

Ken

That looks like a mig-21 with a new nose and intake? Can see the colour change where they chop shopped/ cut & shut it lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a twin or single engine? Can definitely see the -21 in it like Tony mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dov said:

Hallo again

·        If an lineage can be drawn, it's between the F16 and the Lavi

My statement is: No, because it is to my knowledge, that it is the wing which makes an a/c and not the fuselage. Just in short terms. Is apparently the same, but not in reality by facts.

I remember reading several late 80's publicised articles referring to re-use/redesign of the nose & intake, and tail section & powerplant selection as being readily available because of the Israeli F-16 program.

 

Now, if you're saying the US defence industry is averse to an upstart using their base components and making something better, I'd agree.

 

Suggesting that EF is influenced/based on IAI plans has however a connotation that internal security on the IAI project was compromised.
I'm more inclined to the reverse situation knowing some of the intel coups in that part of the world.

 

19 hours ago, dov said:

·        Comparison Typhoon with the F-104

It was just done in the fact of media presence. That is all.

What media? 
Also: let's not forget in the 1960s, F-104 pilots faced a steep learning curve being trained on and used to F-84s and F-86s and were now suddenly flying NoE in a manned missile foisted upon them by bribery.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, alt-92 said:

I remember reading several late 80's publicised articles referring to re-use/redesign of the nose & intake, and tail section & powerplant selection as being readily available because of the Israeli F-16 program.

 

Just to say that I was (among many) involved in the Eurofighter programme in the early/mid 80s, and do not recall any input from any Israeli programme.  Or from any other nations outside of the Eurofighter programme.  Nor do I remember reading any of those articles.  In the early (rubber aircraft) days of aircraft sizing there were indeed studies of different engines, but not the much larger one in the F-16, which would have little or no relevance.  though this was/had been considered for other BAe designs.  Of course some information would be provided from interested engine manufacturers, as a fairly continuous process.

 

I don't recall much change in the nose or intake, other than the fairly late change to a slightly curved design.  I wasn't involved in that, but am left with the opinion that this was more for aesthetics than any strong aerodynamic reason.  There was a brief panic when one very high and mighty BAe official, not involved in the programme, came back from the Paris Air Show with a comment that the Rafale had its canard in a different position to Eurofighter so were we wrong?  There followed a brief design and wind tunnel exercise which unsurprisingly showed that we had it in the right place on our aircraft - which doesn't mean that Dassault was wrong on theirs.  It is possible that some comment could refer to the time lost by the German political panic over cost and could we do it with just one engine - but that was one of the same size as the current two and the inevitable result was that the requirements could not be met.  Whether this was at all inspired by knowledge of the Gripen I rather doubt.  BAe did build the prototype Gripen wing but this was because we could, given our experience in carbon fibre at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about the IAI product (which was within context of the quote). 
Perhaps* I should have stated that literally.

 

 

Edited by alt-92
*really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo again

To refer to Graham Boak: Thank you for your input. Very interesting. The engine history, can you read in the book I mentioned from K. Bauerfeind.

I just do wonder, why this superb wing design, as it can be seen on all modern aircraft did not find the way to US aircraft.

For me it is very interesting to read the mosaics of comments from members with very different background to such a topic.

Happy modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 10:02 AM, exdraken said:

I'd like to see a J-10 at an airshow...

I was lucky... Saw the PLAAF display team in action at the airshow in Zhuhai a year and a half ago.  Except the Pakistani JF-17, I had not seen any of the aircraft in the flying display before.  Definitely a 'refreshing' experience 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments, that may help put a couple things right in this story...

 

The EF and the Lavi : Graham was there and already said how there was nothing coming from Israel in the work that led to the EF2000. If the OP is old enough to have witnessed the first flight of the Lavi, then he sure is old enough to remember the German TFK.90 program and the immediately later ECF collaboration between Britain and Germany. The designs for this already featured a delta wing (a cranked delta) with moveable canards. We're talking 1979 here, at the time the lavi was just a concept for a replacement of the Israeli A-4 fleet and not a fighter as later developed.

The work started with the ECF progressed through several revision of the design, iuncluding the P-110, the ACA and finally the EFA to give us the EF2000 as it is today (and of course with the help of the EAP demonstrator).

The Lavi started taking the final shape in around 1982, a time when the concepts shown by the British and German studies had been known for a few years and so were a number of French studies, so much that in the mid '80s the term "Eurocanard" was commonly used to describe the trend that companies in the continent were following in those years: close coupled canards with delta wings.

So the Lavi not only did not influence any of the work that led to the EF2000 but on the contrary the ideas coming from Europe influenced the work done on the Lavi.

 

The Lavi, was it really an Israeli design ? Yes, it was developed by IAI, but.... a lot of the work that led to the Lavi came from US companies, not from IAI !. The wing is the part that makes an aircraft ? Well, that wing was designed by Grumman at Bethpage NY, together with the tail as the technology to design such composite structures was absent in Israel at the time. Grumman was also expected to build the wings for the first 20 or so production aircraft while IAI developed their own facilities. So where is the Israeli contribution to the advamcement in aerospace technology supposed to be ?

Overall even after the full production capability had been achieved, it was expected that 40% of all components, both structural and equipments, had to come from US factories.

The reality is that the Lavi has become some sort of legend in the same way as many other Israeli made weapons: everybody say they are the best but this is often very far from the truth. On the contrary, a lot of indigenously developed Israeli hardware has seen plenty of problems, so leading to the adoption of mostly US made replacements by the same Israeli armed forces. The Lavi didn't even enter service so we can't say now if it would have been a good or bad design. And it's only with a few years of service that an aircraft or any other weapon can show its real value.

 

The US killed the Lavi: of course, they did ! And not only it was the  right thing to do, but the US should have not even started funding the Lavi !

Approximately 90% of the R&D costs for the Lavi waas covered by US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) funding. This is money given to countries to help them in buying US made material. However FMS funds are not meant to be used for R&D projects and are of course not meant to be used to fund projects outside the US.

When Israel started requesting funds to be allocated to the Lavi, the Pentagon was against this for a couple of important reasons. One was of course the matter of FMS funding, the other was that Israel requested the supply of a number of licenses on technologies that the Pentagon considered to be too advanced to be given to even close allies. Had it been for the standard channels, Israel would have never got the money or the licenses they wanted. However the matter was brought directly to the US Government and to Congress ! The israelis pressured these both directly and through a number of US associations, with the result that the Reagan administrastion overruled the militaries and allowed both the funding and the technology transfer.

At some point however too many people in the US started being critical of the situation: Israel was hoping to have 90% of the production costs funded via FMS while giving back 40% to US companies and this to build an aircraft that would have been offered as competitor to other US types on the export market. It was an unacceptable proposition for the US aerospace industry and to compound the problem it was found that the cost of the program was increasing continuously, with the risk that the US would have required to cover even more of the cost. So finally the end came for the whole project.

The later sale of information from Israel to China was something that made many in the US very unhappy, but really t was simply the demonstration of what the US should have understood from the start of the whole story: that Israel is a reliable ally in the sense that you can rely on them to ask for your help when they need it. Among the information passed to China was stuff that the Pentagon had said they prefererred not to license from day 1 of the while story, that ended up in one of the Countries where nobody in the US wanted to be.

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 9:02 AM, exdraken said:

:D

What are those?

Israeli or Chinese designs?

 

More serious, those designs all are basically the same if you only look at wing and motor location ... ypu vam add enlesd nimberd of WWII typs to those 2.....

Sorry to go off topic but the Spitfire and Hurricane are not basically the same. In terms of construction the Hurricane shares a great deal with the biplanes of WW1, initially wooden frames with stretched fabric while the Spitfire is all metal structure. Come to Duxford and I am happy to prove my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...