It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Britain, Italy seek to slash Eurofighter orders

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by waynos

Waynos i spent nearly an hour searching and i couldnt find it!!!!!!!!!
You can get P.110 and EAP or the Boulton P.120 but nothing of the
P.120 on the eurofighter.

You have mentioned it a few years ago in archives but no photos.
You may only find it in print form only.
Shall have another surf tonight local time.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by Jezza]

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 01:38 AM
The only aircraft of the type that you mention to fit the bll is the ` Warton mock up` of the British Aerospace ACA , around 1982 i think , this was followed by the EAP in 1986 - which really got my gall as if they had the bottle to go it alone could have been well in service by now!

the piccie i remember is of a red/black aircraft.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 05:56 AM
Yes, thats the problem, it seems to have disappeared, but I know what I saw and have followed the Typhoons development intently since it was first mooted when I was 14.

The timeline goes like this

AST 396 followed by AST403 - First Warton proposal was P.96 going through various designs including the tilt engine STOVL P.103 and Gripen-a-like P.106 and another that looked like a scaled down single engine Tornado (yuk!) finally settling on the P.110 (linked above). This was then combined with the German TKF-90 and French ACT 92 to produce the first ECA proposals, France then went a bit schizo and everyone went their own way again.

At this stage BAe Warton designed the ACA, evolved from the earlier P.110, and got the backing needed from the UK Govt to built a flying prototype, at this point Germany and Italy came back and it was proposed that MBB build a second ACA but nobody wanted to pay for it. the Joint programme was called FEFA, but this was changed to EFA when someone pointed out that fefa is a rude word in Italian (hint; "theres no eff in fefa" ).

BAE rechristened the ACA as the EAP, stressing it was a demonstrator, not a fighter prototype (!?!) and changed its twin fins to a single fin taken from the Tornado production line to save money.

EAP flew successfully in 1986 and was described by Dave Eagles (BAe test pilot with experience on all western fighters) as being , airframe and flight control wise, good enough for RAF sevice in terms of performance aqs it stood, echoing Mutt Summers verdict on the Spitfire 50 years earlier (obviously armament and radar systems would have required some work).

Now, if you're still with me, the three nation discussions were going nowhere fast and looked as if they were getting completely bogged down with little progress being made a full two years after the EAP had flown (and Spain was deciding whether to join the EFA or the Rafale) so an exasperated BAe, with the full support of the RAF, revealed the P.120 as the design they would go ahead with if no progress could be made with the international partners.

A lovely colour impression of it was duly published in Flight International and then, at last, Eurofighter got its arse into gear and P.120 was never, and I mean NEVER, mentioned again. Except it looked almost exactly like the Typhoon as flown.

Todays Typhoon is portrayed as having evolved from the first EFA proposals, complete with twin fins and a kinked wing leading edge and flat boxy intake, when in fact it really looks as if it simply morphed into the P.120 after 1990.

To try and get the piccy again I have emailed the guy who runs the Flight archive and asked very nicely, if he could possibly find the time, can he dig it out. Fingers crossed.

posted on Dec, 20 2007 @ 06:14 AM
top banana waynos

really didn`t know about there being an aircraft between EAP and Typhoon - i knew the EAP could have been built , the UK could go it alone and quickly.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by waynos

link 1



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 03:51 AM
Not that one no, even though it does mention the P.120 in the text (see everybody, I have got a good memory and I didn't make it up

However if you look at the links to the side, there is a page titled 'EFA-Will it happen?' THATS IT! Yipeee!!!!

See how it has the curved intake and straight wing leading edge of the Typhoon while the actual 'EFA' on the link does not.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 07:05 AM
we will have to call this your Holy Grail !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We will continue my friend, The search continues

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:00 AM
waynos, just a thought;

maybe its in one of those old "what's this plane" posts - but am I going off-topic or what...

what potential implications does ordering less Eurofighters have on the UK's JSF contract?

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 08:05 AM

Above BAe's P. 120 shows its EAP
parentage but has a straight lead- '
ing edge and simple pitot intakes
FLIGHT International, 25 May 198&

The P.120 is of the same
general configuration as EAP
but with a straight-leadingedge
delta wing vice EAP's
cranked leading edge. Other
differences are deletion of the
leading-edge root extensions
under the canards, and a
slightly taller, more pointed
fin than that shown on BAe's
EFA proposals. The main
difference will be in the
engine intakes, which will be
simple half-round pitot style,
rather than the complexgeometry
box-shaped intakes
of EAP and EFA. EFA's
complex intakes are to meet
the five nations' slightly
different requirements, whereas
P.120's can be simpler to
meet the RAF's more modest
Mach-number requirements.
The P.120 would be powered
by two "extremely developed"
RB.199s, producing 21,0001b
thrust. The aircraft derives a
lot from EAP structure and
technology and would benefit
from the money already spent
on R&D for EAP and thus
be a logical fallback position
should EFA fail.

is this it

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 12:29 PM
Following the topic of the OP

i wrote to the UK MOD and as per there policy they replied within 10 days (good bunch then)

part of the reply

Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter(JSF) or F35 off complimentary capabilites, the former being a replacement for the Tornado F3 and teh Jaguar aircraft whereas the latter will assume the role of the Harrier GR9 and subsequently Tornado GR4 capabilities.Whilst both aircraft will offer multi-role capabilities, each is optimised to contribute to the UK`s air power capability encompassing air superiority and surface strike.

Negotiations with Industry and other nations regarding Tranche 3 are ar an early stage and will continue into 2008. As part of these negotiations it is important that we focus on quality rather than quantity of the platforms and to address capacity for future capability insertion when defining our requirements.

thank you etc etc

can scan the letter if its wanted

bolded is mine as are any spelling mistakes - but i fear for a number reducion of tranche 3 - and its interesting they see the JSF as a replacment for the GR4 - thought what was to be `son of FOAS` or whatever the plan is called this week.

posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 01:00 PM
Yes, you found the page. Excellent!

Its nice to be able to prove to everyone that the P.120 wasn't just hot air, and I really have been following this programme since the beginning. I have mentioned this design several times without any evidence of it ever surfacing once, til now.

Odd how not one single source on the internet that purports to show the history of the Typhoon ever even mentions the P.120, while the wing and intqake design are clearly closer to the P.120 than the EFA design.

The two pictures reproduced above are the exact ones I was describing when I said how it looked as if they both came from the same original artwork due to the angle etc. One thing I had forgotten was the totally different arrangement of the AMRAAM's under the belly.

Not bad recall though for something I had not seen for over 20 years

Excellent detection work Jezza

[edit on 26-12-2007 by waynos]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in