The Space Congress® Proceedings 1976 (13th) Technology For The New Horizon

Apr 1st, 8:00 AM

Some Observations of European Collaborative Projects

N. W. Boorer Group Planning Executive, British Aircraft Corporation Limited

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings

Scholarly Commons Citation Boorer, N. W., "Some Observations of European Collaborative Projects" (1976). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 1. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1976-13th/session-5/1

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOME OBSERVATIONS OF EUROPEAN COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS

N.W. Boorer, C.Eng. , F.R.Ae.S., M.A.I.A.A. Group Planning Executive British Aircraft Corporation Limited.

even in 1935 the British ABSTRACT call that aircraft industry was twice the size of International collaboration on its US counterpart. has been a way of life aerospace projects European inventiveness has in Europe for many years. The paper will Although shown the way in practically all technolo­ deal with some of the reasons for this to and manufacture gical progress from the railway engine association in development have generally been some of the relevant manage­ the space rocket, we and describe to reap the rewards - partic­ ment organisations. ill-poised ularly of our more recent endeavours - its of the existing which have gone to the USA with A brief review with production for and their programmes will be made greater pre-occupation projects domestic market. with particular emphasis on the MRCA pro­ a large This represents the present phase gramme. The 'horse-less 1 carriage is an ex­ of work using the variable wing sweep started in ample from an earlier era. Gottlieb principle/ research on which and other included some Anglo- Daimler, Lanchester, Turcat the late 1940's and set the technical scene co-operation via NASA. The Europeans may have American was Henry Ford who supplied the variable sweep concept survived a series but it of national and international programme market. and political situations before studies In aeronautics too, Europe has often reaching its present stage. pioneered in technology (swept wing from jet propulsion, radar, VTOL etc) Europe is currently measuring its Germany, but we have failed to reap the reward by capability of remaining a first line of re­ and some quantity production. The sharing source of aerospace equipment financial, and ex­ will be made with regard to sources, particularly observations of the market are the driving the future in this respect. tension reasons for Aerospace collaborative partnerships. INTRODUCTION Europe today is a collection of EUROPE TODAY states - (of which Great Britain sovereign Sharing work in Europe is not a is an off-shore island) - with a long inventive­ recent innovation; in 1910 an Anglo-French tradition of resourcefulness, was shown at an ex­ in both the aesthetic project, the Zodiac, ness and ingenuity in Olympia, London and the and martial arts. The growth of the hibition and Bristol Boxkite, which stemmed from a nation-state is a European phenomenon being produced at our ancestors set French Farman design was it was from Europe that week. The Vickers world - the principal the rate of two per out to colonise the was designed in partnership being the quest for trade No.l monoplane driving-force another Frenchman, M. Pelterie. and gold. with 1 shows many current partner­ you have a captive market - Figure Unless for airframe and helicopter manu­ quite literally was often so in ships which facture, which have worked with varied, those days (slave-trade) - you have to of wants but in general, satisfactory degrees offer something which your customer are not cannot make, or success; these associations and more importantly to European partners. Figure 2 for himself at a cheaper price. limited obtain, shows the similar situation which exists Since the new-found world was abundant with as there also countries of among the engine companies raw materials, the mother and space activity. One Europe - led by Britain - were spurred does in missile interesting feature shown on these two into the development of technology some two in on networks is that manufacturers can be centuries ago since when we have relied and in oppo­ in order to earn collaboration on one project our technical expertise another. There are no formal in the world. Coming now to sition on our living associations for the long term continuity more modern times it is interesting to re­

5-25 of Aerospace programmes, although Airbus there is a firm production commitment by Industrie is a move in this direction! each of the participating Governments; for other current associations could develop example the Jaguar has a British/French this way. commitment for 40O aircraft, over 200 of which have already been delivered to the The number of employees in the major two Air Forces. In addition Export pro­ companies of the European industry are duction is in hand for two other countries. shown on Figure 3 which also compares The MRCA production requirements total 807 three of these airframe companies with the aircraft, 385 for RAF, 322 for the German large American companies. The comparison Air Force and 100 for the Italians. might suggest one reason why Europe is Export interest is already being shown. striving to get together in some manner to pool its resources, to match US competit­ None of these however resulted from ion. It also highlights a likely problem a NATO specification, perhaps the nearest which we in the U.K. could be up against was the Breguet Atlantic sponsored by the when negotiating with European partners, Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, that of the relative sizes of our ind­ France, Holland, U.S.A. and NATO; the two ustries. U.K. has the complete capability latter,did not take part in the manufact­ to "go it alone", but the capital re­ uring activity. The UK on this occasion sources are not there to back the invest­ chose the Nimrod to meet its own special ment required, even if the political en­ requirements, for very good operational vironment allowed. reasons but to the annoyance of the sponsoring countries. Historically, Europe's share of world trade has been of the order of 30%, About 1961-1962 NATO Basic Military (Figure 4.) (10% BAG, 10% Fokker, 10% - Requirements Numbers 3 and 4 were issued other - Civil a/c). This trade excludes to meet the need for a short take off and China, the Soviet Union and the United vertical landing tactical aircraft and for States own military market, the U.K. has its support aircraft. Although participa­ consistently contributed about half of tion in design and manufacture across that of all Europe put together. It is the national frontiers featured as a require­ aim of any "United Europe" approach to ment, after a full scale competition, Aerospace to keep or even improve on this technical evaluation and a winner chosen, performance, providing the world market the project fell by the wayside, a triumph and the opportunity are there. for Nationalism. A total involvement in all Aerospace Defence budgets can and do alter activity is an essential in providing a these programmes and we are now in a balanced base. Guided Weapons, Space, period of stringent economy. It is im­ Military Aircraft and Commercial Aircraft portant therefore that each participating within one overall organisation allows for country takes due cognizance of the re­ the peaks and valleys of each to be quirements of the broader market in smoothed and for the fusion of the differ­ arriving at its operational requirements, ent technologies across the board to be to make the product attractive to custom­ beneficial to each. However, to keep this ers other than itself. Provided this is paper within bounds, Military and done sensibly it can be of benefit to the Commercial aspects o^nly will be dealt with. home customer by virtue of a cheaper product. A collaborative military project usually has political as well as commerc­ The longer production runs of ial overtones; as often as not the allo­ collaborative projects leading to lower cation of work is controlled politically or unit cost, contrasts sharply with some of strategically, rather than on a wholly the purely national projects which had commercial basis. been conducted on the "drip feed" or never-never basis, whereby successive Collaboration in Europe, see Figure stages of the programme were contracted 5, has so far included, such projects as the for without there being any commitment Transall, Breguet Atlantique, Jaguar, MRCA whatever to the next stage. and Alpha Jet and has demonstrated a re­ markable degree of success in the com­ For the production of Civil Aircraft, promise of each, country's own Operational the attractions for International requirements. collaboration are quite different, the collaborating Governments feel unable to The advantage of European programmes instruct their own national airlines to for Military Aircraft stems from, the fact buy. There is no dramatic increase in the that Governments are the customers and that starting orders, as in the case with it is almost impossible to get an inter­ Military Aircraft. In fact there is no national programme going at all unless certainty that there will be any starting

5-26 four industrial orders from the joining countries. Air­ top man in each of the be wholly or companies (two airframe, two engine) and lines, although they may Teams can be partly state owned, have to operate in a the two Government Project environment and if they identified at any one time. But the highly competitive Leaders are the serv­ are not using equipment that is as good as Government Project can buy in the free ants of their respective Ministers so it their competitors people are in market, they will lose their competitive can be said that eight edge - at least that's the airline view! charge. Figure 6, have The Concorde organisation and mana­ Fewer partnerships, in a book, so far been established for Civil Aircraft gement is fully recorded have, have so far demon­ 'Organizing the Transnational 1 by but those that written under the aus­ strated that they can produce technically Milton S. Hochmuth pices of the Centre for International good aircraft. However, airlines have is from a single manu­ Affairs Harvard University. The author historically bought by the technical facturer; consortium built aircraft are obviously confounded of the big tasks has success of a project in which in theory new to them and one not work. been to earn customer confidence in these the management could consortia. Such an organisation is obviously not the best for quick decision making but technical success of the MANAGEMENT OF COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS the undoubted project might quite well be attributed to feature of collabora­ the microscopic attention given to solving One essential and professional tion is to get the difficult, but abso­ the many requirements lutely necessary, matter of programme man­ pride of the participants. agement right and this subject could well own. A summary will The Government organisation for merit a paper on its Figure 8 with the air- suffice here. Jaguar is shown on frame industrial company Societe Euro- different methods of peenne de Production de 1'Avion E. C.A.T. Two basically has no staff of its organization for the projects that have (SEPECAT). SEPECAT far been tried. own but draws on the facilities of the been discussed have so company is Concorde is controlled by a series of parent companies. The nationals registered in France under French contract committees whose members include is the comp­ of both participating countries and re­ law. RolIs-Royce/Turborneca authority at any registered in England under British sponsible to a joint national the engine produc­ ministerial level. Jaguar and MRCA are contract law to control set up in one tion. Work sharing is, like Concorde, run by industrial companies the two countries. or other of the participating countries equally split between of the 'host 1 The Jaguar programme is one of the most acting under the laws aircraft programmes of country and responsible to policy organ­ rapid of military of the nations modern times. In three years from defi­ izations comprising members flight. concerned. The policy organizations are nition to supersonic responsible for providing the industrial of necessary finance drawn Jaguar was evolved as a result companies with the one in France and the in pre-determined ratios from each parti­ two requirements, according to other in the U.K., both being studied by cipating nation's treasury and design teams work-sharing agreement. the respective services the in 1964. The formal agreement for a joint until May, 1965 Figure 7 sets out the Concorde project was not signed to the industrial when technical co-operation between organization down started towards an agreed working level on the airframe side. The Breguet and BAC engine firms follow a similar pattern. aircraft design. there At this time the two engine compan­ It is important to stress that - also as a French Concorde or a ies - Rolls-Royce and Turbomeca is no such thing design collaboration. Pro­ British Concorde. Two assembly lines began their the other in totype manufacture did not start until exist, one in Toulouse, and less than two years Filton, but each Concorde is assembled October, 1966 per cent later, in September 1968, the first Jaguar from components and equipment 50 assembled in and supplied by France built in two countries, but of which are built for the first time. and 50 per cent of which are built and France, flew aircraft is, there­ supplied by U.K. Each controlled by the a truly joint effort. The MRCA is fore, British, German and Italian Governments, man been establi­ Figure 9, and the industrial companies At no time has one and Turbo-Union shed as leading the Concorde Project. The Panavia (airframe)

5-27 (engine) and Mauser IWKA (gun). Panavia, chart of some of the Organisations con­ and Mauser are registered in Germany and cerned with the Aerospace future in Turbo-Union in England. Capital arrange­ Europe together with the countries who are ments are in the ratio BAC-42% per cent; members of these. Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm 42k per cent; Fiat - 15 per cent. The Commission of the European Communities (EEC) - Action Programme for Panavia has a permanent staff, its the European Aeronautical Sector, was the members being seconded from BAG, MBB and subject of a lecture in December, 1975 at Fiat, and draws on the facilities of those the Royal Aeronautical Society in London parent companies. by Christopher Layton. The Airbus Industrie organisation is The work of the report surveyed all shown on Figure 10. Airbus Industrie acts of the aspects, motivations, market, as main contractor for the whole program. financing methods, employment and product­ The policy of Airbus Industrie is directed ivity, research and technological develop­ by a Supervisory Board which consists of ment etc. leading toward proposing a members from Aerospatiale, CASA, Fokker, common policy for the aircraft industry. Deutsche Airbus and Hawker Siddeley. The Quoting from the Report:- policy decided upon by the Supervisory Board is effected by the Chief Executive "If the Community's aircraft and four Directors for Production, Techni­ industry is to have any future, we must go cal Affairs and Co-ordination, Financial beyond the stage of intergovernmental co­ Affairs and Commercial Affairs; the latter operation between differing, and still means sales and after-sales activities. national, aerospace policies. Airbus Industrie signs the contracts with its suppliers which are the companies AS, To this end, sponsorship of the Hawker Siddeley, Fokker, General Electric aircraft industry should be exercised by and others, and it signs the sales agree­ the Community" . ments with the airlines. Airbus Industrie is also responsible for training and for It goes on to enlarge on this by after-sales financing. ^Airbus Industrie saying: - is a Groupement d'lnteret Economique (G.I.E.) which is a particular company "The Council would make the major structure unique to French law. policy decisions on programmes, financing and conduct consultations with users, The U.S. practice of prime contract­ producers, trade union and national or and sub-contractor is not presently authorities, to bring all large civil suited to Europe - principally because of transport aircraft construction activities national pride I There are too many into a coherent programme, optimising the companies in existence and too few proj­ use of resources, to arrange a joint re­ ects in prospect and Governments (rather search programme etc." There is a great than industrialists) need design leader­ deal of background in the document, it is ship to be vested in their own country a commendable and enthusiastic effort; from time to time in order to justify enthusiasm and positive thinking is an their voters 1 money. important ingredient toward a prosperous future, but there must be doubt on time In a developed Western democracy scale, time to reach agreements, more im­ where the Defence Budget is always sub­ portant to make decisions. This paper is jected to close scrutiny - and rightly so - not the proper medium to comment further. the situation is high- lighted in the military aircraft programmes. I need only N.A.T.O. - has 15 permanent members, but mention in passing the abortive attempt to the Military Committee which makes re­ build the Anglo-French Variable Geometry commendations on military matters is re­ Aircraft (AFVG) where one partner elected presented by only 13 members. Iceland has to go-it-alone. Nationalism dies hard in no military forces and France withdrew the military sphere but progress is being from the military organisation in 1966. made and the recent EEC Action, Programme for the European Aeronautical Sector in­ The Western European Union - has seven cludes proposals for both military and members and was formed to provide for co­ civil aerospace which goes beyond inter­ ordination of defence policies and co­ governmental collaboration and points the operation in economic social and cultural way ahead, in Europe. matters.

WHERE NEXT My next Figure (Figure 11) is a

5-28 the European Association of national airlines of these countries, A.E.C.M.A. - Air France and Lufthansa Aircraft Manufacturers is represented by British Airways, in 10 countries of our are currently working together toward the equivalent aim. S.B.A.C. It also includes Eurospace as a achieving this aims of AECMA and an member. The of Six Activity started on appraisal of the prospects of the European The Group is documented by a 2nd September, 1974 following an Inter- Aerospace Industry between SNIAS, BAG, lecture by Mr. Greenwood/ President of Company Agreement of B.A.C. given at the Dornier, H.S.A., MBB and VFW/Fokker. AECMA and Chairman Communication to the Royal Aeronautical Society in April, 1975. Following a Joint three interested Governments of 18th the Principals of the Six The European Civil Aviation Conference - November, 1974 organisation Companies agreed to establish an Executive is an inter-governmental an Exploratory Phase which has the objective of promoting the Board to supervise co-ordination, the better utilization and to October, 1975. of European air the orderly development is not an aeroplane transport. This activity project it is a study group to seek and is one - Agency - was in May, define an opportunity - if there The European Space the requirements to meet 1975 formed out of the earlier ELDO and and to determine ESRO organisations to promote co-operation such an opportunity. technology for in space research and were to undertake peaceful purposes. Its guidelines discussions with the three National Air­ and Lufthansa regarding Eurogroup - is a group of 10 countries lines, B.A., A.F. and their joint requirements for future short intent on getting joint procurement (E.A.O.R. f s) and programme co-operation. medium haul requirements study the market in other airlines To examine the Each of these is, in some way or throughout the world. toward improving the prospects of meeting these requirements another, working resources with particular European member countries Aerospace bus­ from European net effect of emphasis on derivatives of existing air­ iness; I wonder what the possible to examine effort might be. craft and where not this the prospects for a new design. To assess including manufactur­ For many years now governments and overall efficiency, sit­ ing productivity and consider what im­ industry together, have produced a examine has collected a 30% provements could be effected and uation where Europe organisation might be used. share of the world trade, half of this what types of Aircraft, from the U.K. alone. In Military this phase of the result of collabora­ Conclusions reached in this is largely that:- tive projects. On the civil side, from the work show Caravelle, successful uni-lateral products, aircraft provide a Trident and F-28. Whatever Current European B.A.C. 1-11, for development. else happens, nothing must put a brake on sound base the smooth running and the industrial technological these. Ideally, the aim Europe has a proven implications of but its competitive position of these European organisations should be capability, to develop on this process and help to­ must be improved. some of their imperfections. ward removing The world market indicates en­ to the end of the We have some successful military couraging prospects aircraft programmes going well now and the century. some of the European count­ Air Staffs of conclusions also state reserva­ ries have already gone a long way in dis­ The f s suit­ tions over the credibility of collaborat­ cussion toward the writing of OR to the joint use and for the wider ive arrangements and points able for their agreeing a joint policy. market? hopefully this will lead to the urgency in rather next big purchase from European of the next stage of from U.S. sources. The objective than the investigations is to make definitive have historically recommendations on a joint European European Airlines policy by mid 1976. bought mainly from U.S. sources, (Figure product 12) but encouragement to buy from Euro­ be as a re­ Over the years B.A.C., Fokker, pean manufacturers will only have demonstrated there being available in Europe H.S.A. and S.N.I.A.S. sult of their ability to penetrate the markets of equipment to meet their requirement, at the the right price. the world (Figure 13). Hopefully, the right time and for just referred to will help Six companies in three countries and the organisations

5-29 to improve the percentage of European Because of necessary Government in­ aircraft in European fleets* volvement political pressures cannot be avoided but as a matter of principle So far I have not really mentioned collaborative projects should not be Concorde. It is a technically excellent undertaken for reasons of political con­ aircraft, free from competition, outside of venience. Each project must be viable in the USSR but it is inconceivable that it the conditions in which it is being built, will go all that long without United but ideally also be capable of satisfying States competition it is a key aircraft of the broader requirements and capable of any European family and 'must be part of achieving a worthwhile share of the world any long term plan. A supersonic trans­ market. Collaborative projects must also port long term future is I believe inevit­ be undertaken for the benefit of all able! but I think dependent on broader parties concerned. collaboration than European alone, colla­ boration also with American partners. Possibly the best way toward a future prosperous European Industry is to I have deliberately refrained from build up on our existing collaborative writing much about European Companies partnerships towards more permanent joining American Companies as an alter­ bodies; with governments, through their native to, or part of, developing the various agencies, assisting by writing European Industry; the subject of the specifications more acceptable across the paper being European collaboration. In board and suitable for world wide markets. looking toward the future however Europe Provided that commercially competitive must not close its eyes to the fact that civil aircraft can be built in Europe, this alternative exists? .American governments should encourage their associations and their consequences must national airlines to look more generously be studied and considered. We are fully to this market. There appears to be a aware of U.S., competitive ability, we clear need to move toward broader inter­ don't know as much as we should about the national collaboration particularly in the rules for working together which would very high resource absorbing projects, satisfy us and be to the benefit of both particularly space and the supersonic parties. Taking in sub-contract work from transport. this area - if available - for example would help us to understand each other Modern facilities of transport and better and could lead to more permanent communications makes distance no longer a associations. Some collaborative work barrier or inconvenience in arranging with U.S.A. but which must include a de­ partnerships and Aerospace has played the gree of design responsibility could major part in reaching this state. It is supply some of the bricks for developing almost natural that we should seek and European Aerospace. Getting our house in develop common interests. Compared with order toward a strong European industry is MacDonnell Douglas' world wide component an important feature in any future broader supply lines (Figure 14) those of our International collaboration to the benefit current European partners represent little of all parties concerned. more than a Western seaboard activity. Aerospace requires such enormous resources, that the large projects such APPENDIX as supersonic transport and space trans­ port, i.e. space shuttle, - lead almost VARIABLE WING SWEEP. EARLY RESEARCH WORK inevitably to broader sharing of work. - TO MRCA For Europe even to decide which areas it should work in or which it should avoid, a Variable wing sweep research is one close liaison understanding with the U.S. example of innovation and probably the would be of great value to both sides. longest programme spanning as it does That engineers on both sides of the from the early research in 1945 through Atlantic can work together successfully many start, stop projects and studies, and with respect for each other was borne some across International boundaries, to out when a British Aircraft Corporation the 1st flight of MRCA in 1974. For the team worked with the North American research worker, engineer and technologist Rockwell team in 1970-71. the programme has been both fascinating and rewarding and a short survey of this Military Aircraft requirements are work follows. It deals only with the different, for example, the requirements work done by Vickers and later BAG Limited which met the need of Vietnam would not because of the author's close association have suited the environment in Europe, but with it. The historical milestones are:- even here certain arrangements across the water are sensible. U.S.A. for instance 1946 Miles M52 manned experimen­ bought Harrier. tal supersonic aircraft prototype stopped.

5-30 V.S. project 1956 to 1949 Barnes Wallis Variable 1965 to 1967 Anglo-French Geometry (variable sweep and (A.F.V.G.). incidence) studies variable project. and experimental models 1967 France abandons built. 1967 to 1968 U.K. holding operation 1949 to 1959 Unmanned Wild Goose and (UKVG). flying, detail mech­ Swallow work anical and bearing test 1968 A.C.A. - M.R.C.A. work, general operational begins. aircraft studies and some missile studies - all em­ 1974 M.R.C.A. 1st flight. bracing variable wing sweep. Toward the end of the 1939-45 War of Wild Goose Barnes Wallis (now Sir Barnes Wallis) 1952 Manned variant super­ stopped at advanced became involved in research toward (J.C.9) work was state of build. sonic flight. Initially this associated with the Miles M52 a research sweep design to OR vehicle with straight thin wings of low 1955 Variable rocket 330 (Recce Bomber) studied. aspect ratio. Unmanned models, propelled were dropped from a Mosquito White Paper aircraft in 1947 and reached M=1.02. He 1957 U.K. Defence clash against manned aircraft. soon realised the configuration between subsonic long range and low speed high aspect ratios 1958 Vickers and Ministry of requirements demanding team visit NASA and the ideal swept back low aspect ratio Aviation and that the Langley for discussion with needs of the supersonic wing John Stack and variable configuration solution (the the late Mr. aim. team. Polymorph) should be his design studies to OR First studies were around a con­ 1958 Feasibility (Figure 15) 339 (TSR2). figuration called Wild Goose a solution where the tailplane was dis­ re­ 1959 V.S. Research moved from pensed with longitudinal stability Wallis) to sulting from the interaction of the body R&D (Barnes in wing Vickers Design Office. pitching moment and small changes sweep. Roll control was by use of asymm­ Many novel wing sus­ 1959/60 Joint NASA, MOA and Vickers etric wing sweep. pension schemes were evolved, some in­ studies. incidence Feasibility study ER 206 to cluding an independent variable requirement control (Figure 16) . The final solution Naval/Airstaff pivot mounted OR 346. for this phase was a single inside and using the structural depth with British afforded by a 3:2 ratio elliptical section 1960 Vickers merges pin being set at Aircraft Corporation. fuselage, the axis of the an angle to give the appropriate re­ incidence and dihedral over 1961 NATO BMR 3 Proposal. quirements of the sweep range. To achieve the necessary 9-10 required laminar flow 1962-3 Studies to OR 356 and AW 406 target L/D of over a large part of the body length and RAF/RN requirements. for this Studies to convert fixed the configuration was abandoned wing aircraft into V.S. reason. flying test experimental "Swallow" beds. The next configuration (Figure 17) was in effect the Wild Goose of V.S. exper­ fuselage flattened to a delta form with 1963-4 Detail design Theoretical imental aircraft to an wings appended at the base. configuration and model work gave hope that an L/D of operational feasible. The (Type 593). about the right order was configuration demanded a different pivot not to proceed with approach to wing suspension as the 1964 Decision within the wing the experimental aircraft point would be contained geometry (Figure 18). The solution approach. Work transferred and (Weybridge) to chosen used a spherical pivot bearing from B.A.C. providing a three BAG (Preston) Division. arcuate wing root pads point non-redundant suspension with a trainer/ large structural arm to reduce bearing 1963 to 1965 Variable wing sweep dis­ aircraft loads. Space does not allow detail light tactical Wild Goose sus- studies. cussion on this or the

5-31 were made to pension but a great deal of bearing A number of proposals development, types of sealing and arrange­ get flying experience by converting the existing aircraft into variable sweep ex­ ments for carrying services round notable of was done. perimental machines, the most pivot, these being a modification to an English It would Pilot—less models, weighing about Electric Lightning aircraft. were flown, have improved the Lightning's airfield 100O Ibs. and. 30 ft. span else but its propelled by a cold motor rocket - performance but little 'under pressure purpose was intended for practical ex­ hydrogen peroxide expelled improvement. through a catalyst. A similar though perience and not Type more powerful rocket system propelled a The models "took off 11 In parallel an entirely new ex­ launching trolly. was projected (Figure when the trolly reached launching speed perimental aircraft by the wings ex­ 21) (Type 583) having a configuration and and, the lift generated development to an ceeded the weight* as measured by an auto­ envelope size to allow flew operational role and the design and matic spring release* f'he aircraft detail. a circular course *piloted" from a central programme went into considerable from the aircraft Although the relative cost of this and position some mile or so was in the at all times* Part of the control, the the Lightning modification over to another order of 10:1 the more expensive model roll signal was handed be the more pilot located at the far end of a con­ was chosen by M.O.A. to second Poll Pilot valuable as a research tool, but it was ventional runway* This with. Thus "banked" the aircraft into a level expensive and not proceeded when ready the practical experience of mechanisms position over the runway 'and, been signalled the central and now Pitch Pilot and structures which could have Swallow .Models' provided by the cheaper Lightning modifi­ to land the machine. Later reason took off and landed from a runway in the cation, was lost. The official own under­ for not proceeding with an experimental conventional manner 'using its that carriage* aircraft was that it was considered enough wind tunnel, structural and of the work proved that mechanical test work and analysis was This phase that a Variable these rather unorthodox configurations done to give confidence quite easily but a manned Sweep operational aeroplane was practical could be flown arose. version of the Wild Goose was in an ad­ when the operational need when it was stopped vanced state of build followed, in favour of the pilot-less experiments. Many operational studies about mechanisms, auto­ the work having now been transferred to A lot was learnt British matic pilots, Ingenious methods of remote the Preston Division of the than hoped about Aircraft Corporation (earlier English flying but perhaps less and the design, characteristics for an Electric and producers of Canberra operational aircraft. Lightning aircraft) . International collaborative activity started again with Government shared the cost a joint Anglo/French requirement (AFVG) The U.K. years of of this work with Vickers, but when their which stopped after about two in 1958 Vickers sought to work when the French withdrew; later to support ceased V.S. continue with the work through the Mutual embark on their own unilateral Aid Weapons Development Programme Mirage project. Following a holding (M.W.D.P.) which was already assisting the operation initial work began on an funding of the Bristol Siddeley Pegasus Advanced Combat Aircraft (ACA) involving deflecting jet engine. This led to a UK, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands team visiting NASA Langley in November, and Canada (Figure 22) . 1958. Work at Vickers was transferred from the Barnes Wallis research area to Figure 23 shows the International the military project office at Weybridge Family Tree leading to MRCA and the under the overall International Panavia Company, by which (soon to become BAG) had control of Sir George Edwards and for a time Belgium, Netherlands and Canada year or so there was a joint study with dropped out of the project. of the arrangements that NASA. One has been emerged is shown on (Figure 19) . It might appear from what written here that Variable Wing Sweep has Many studies were made to British been the driving force behind the MRCA requirements to a joint Naval and Air design. It is the other way round when Variable Sweep was Variable Wing Sweep is a necessary Staff target the compared with other fixed wing arrange­ feature to enable the requirements of a project was tendered to interested Air Staffs to be met and ments. Later for the NATO BMR 3 requirement, (Figure 20) before confirming this configuration a vertical lift capability. the design comparative fixed wing studies which also had and This requirement fell down because of were made (Figure 24) there are right European local Nationalisms. proper reasons and opportunities for

5-32 adopting this feature. Such is the ancestry of this latest European Military project which is now well into its development phase. Although space does not allow comment acknowledge­ ment must be made of other UK work part­ icularly at Folland the work by Messerschmitt (Me P1101), Bell and Grumman in U.S. around 1950, of the US F-lll and the U.S. supersonic airliner work.

5-33 htBrnational collaboration

AMD-Breguet

HeUcxspters Alpha Jet

VfesUand 1 I BAG I ! HSA VFW-Fokker

SAAB-Scania Eupoplane MRCA

Aeritaia Boeing 1 Me Donnell Douglas]

Figure 1. Collaborative Aircraft Projects

International collaboration

Fiat (Volvo Flygmotor RB199^ Viper RM6/Avori

Figure 2. Collaborative Engine Projects

5-34 European Workforce Thousands 100 Strength 400,000 1973 CD Turnover £ 1,600 M 80 m

BACorHSA 60

Dassault-Breguet HarlandBros&hort VFW/Fokker 1 40 cMDonnellDouglas Scaniaaabi jeritalia Westlands I |SNIAS )omier 20 o |SNIAS 1 2 CO i i CO < m CO CO

Figure 3. Size of Aerospace Companies

UK/Europe Share of Aerospace Trade percent

o 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

lUU/o rest of Europe 50% — \ iiy Urv |if%" n UK share of Europe's aeropace trade with the World

Figure 4. Performance of U.K. and European Industry

5-35 Some European Military Programmes I

SJSUAS MBB. VRW./Fokker SMIAS. Breguet Dornier Fiat Sabca 178 produced 87 produced

BAG Dassault/Breguet Dassault/Breguet Dornier BAG. MBR'Aeritalia Production 400 (+200 deliu) Production 400 potential production 800

Figure 5. Some Collaborative Military Aircraft

(Some European Civil Programmes 1

BAC-SNIAS SNIAS- MBB-VFW/ HS A. CASA Production -16 Ordered-9 Production 80 Ordered 32

Group of Six ? (Seven) SNIAS. BAG US A. MBB Dornier VFW/Fokker(Dassault)

Fokker/VFW Study Group Producticn 2permonthOrctened-110'f

Figure 6. Some Collaborative Civil Aircraft

5-36 FRENCH BRITISH GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT z UJ DIRECTING COMMITTEE £ Chairmen iT^SB (alternating) H O V? MANAGEMENT BOARD (alternating)

AIRCRAFT COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS ENGINES Chairmen (alternating) COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS sChief Executives \ technical Director & Deputy & \ ' J~ Production Director & Deputy

Q Z

EXECUTIVE COMHlTTEE JOINT SALES SUPPORT DIVISION ORGANIZATION

~BAC-

Figure 7. Concorde Management Structure

JAGUAR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

FRENCH BRITISH EXECUTIVE AGENCY EXECUTIVE AGENCY

FRENCH BRITISH OFFICIALS OFFICIALS SUPPLYING SUPPLYING NATIONAL NATIONAL OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENTS EQUIPMENTS \ SEPECAT ROLLS-ROYCE - TURBOMECA

BREGUET BAG ROLLS-ROYCE TURBOMECA

Figure 8. Jaguar Management - Structures (S.E.P.E.C.A.T.)

5-37 GOVERNMENTS

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

PANAVIA PRIME AIRCRAFT CONTRACTORS GMBH

FIRST LINE CONTRACTORS

CO-PRODUCERS

EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS

FIgure 9. M•R.C.A. Management - S tructures ( Panavia)

A300B AIRBUS INDUSTRIE ORGANIZATION

Supervisory Board President. F. J. Strauss

1 1 Director Director Direptor Director Technical & Finance Production Commercial Coordination Administration

Figure 10. A-300 Management Structure (Airbus Industrie)

5-38 Non European

Figure 11. Some European Aerospace Organisations

European Fleets Aircraft in service or on order 50 100 150 200 British Airways TEuropean US Air France Lufthansa Alitalia Iberia SAS Swissair KLM Airiraft in service or on order 150 300 450 600 Other European European" US (103 Airlines)

Figure 12. European Airline Fleet - Supply Sources

5-39 Sales by European Manufacturers -By Country of first delivery Number of Aircraft 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

BAG Europe USA Rest of World

Fokker/ VFW

HSA

SNIAS

Airbus Industrie

Dassault

Figure 13. European Manufacturers - Market Penetration

A 300 B vs DC-10 Production Concentration

300 B DC-10

Figure 14. Industrial Supply Lines Comparison

5-40 Figure 15. "Wild Goose" and Launching Trolley

WINGS. IN THIS SPECIFICATION THE USE OF WINGS VICKERS PATENTS ON VARIABLE WITH SYMMETRIC, ANTISYMMETRIC. S, ASYMMETR 1C TRACKS ARE FIXED TO VARIABLE SWEEP FOR PITCH SWEEP FuR THE STRUCTURE. AND INCLINED DIFFERENTIAL INCIDENCE FOR ROLL PERFORMANCE OF TO TAKE NORMAL REACTION MANOEUVRE IS FROM ROLLERS ON ADVOCATED. CARRIAGES.

CARRIAGES (T) ARE CONSTRAINED 3Y TRACKS (f) TO ROTATE ABOUT AXES — • — • AS PUSH-PULL ROD (3) ENGAGES TOOTHF.D QUADRANTS

WING ROTATES ON CARRIAGE EXTENSION (5) | UNDER CONTROL OF JACK © WING TORQUES TRANSMITTED ^-—-• THROUGH PINIONED SHAFTS ENGAGING CURVED RACKS (8) INTEGRAL WITH TRACKS PATENT 741,717 INCLINED TRACKS AND PUSH-P'JLL ROD TRUNNION FREE TO ROTATE RELATIVE DIHEDRAL WILL CHANGE WITH SWEEP. TO FUSELAGE, NORMAL WING REACTIONS TRANSFERRED

TRUNNION FREE TO ROTATE RELATIVE TO FUSELAGE. NORMAL REACTIONS TRANSFERRED MOTOR DRIVES WORM ALONG PFGS IN TRACK WORM CHANGES SWEEP (YOKES FREE ABOUT SYMMETRICAL WORM TRUNNION] DRIVE ON TOP i BOTTOM FREE TO PINION CHANGES INCIDENCE ARMS OF CARRIAGE TWIST RELATIVE (OR DIHEDRAL*) BY ROTATING DIFFERENTIAL DRIVE TO TRUNNION TRUNNION & ECCENTRICS, WING CHANGES INCIDENCE (SLIGHT AXIAL FREEDOM CONSTRAINED BY WORM VIA YOKE PATENT 741,718 ALSO} PATENT 741,719 *BY CHOSEN "PHASE" OF ECCENTRICITY

Figure 16. Variable Geometry Wing Suspensions

5-41 Figure 17. "Swallow" - Unmanned Flight

PIN BENDING PAD SYSTEM DIFFERENTIAL SYSTEM

4O TONS 4OT (RESULTANT WING SHEAR)

SINGLE PIN ATTACHMENT REDUNDANT THREE-POINT MOUNTING 82T

STATICALLY FAILURE OF BALL DETERMINATE PAD BOTTOM SUSPENSION SYSTEM 4OT (RESULTANT WING SHEAR) 30TONS DAI , ,..„.-.- r^ REDUNDANT THREE POINT MOUNTING BALL THREE POINT MOUNTING WITH FAILURE OF WING TENSION LUG COMPARISON OF WING LOADING SYSTEMS

Figure 18. Variable Sweep Wing Suspensions

5-42 Figure 19. N.A.S.A. - Anglo U.S. Study Configuration

SCALE M FEET

Figure 20. N.A.T.O. B.M.R.3. Proposal

5-43 Figure 21. Research Aircraft - Type 583 Study

Figure 22. M.R.C.A.

5-44 ' 1965 • 1966 • 1967 ' 1968 1969 1970

.BREGUET 121 FRANCE- •MIRAGEG- JAGUAR-

UK PANAVIA —MRA75*— MRCA ——— FRG - ITALY 100/200 \ ITALY BELGIUM NETHERLANDS BELGIUM NETHERLANDS CANADA CANADA

Figure 23. M.R.C.A. International Family Tree

Figure 24. M.R.C.A. V.S. Versus Fixed Wing

5-45