|
Description
| Notes: Experimental HIGH-WING vtol to evaluate thrust augmentation principle (1 CREW) . | ||
| Manufacturer: | Rockwell | |
| Base model: | V-12 | |
| Designation: | XFV-12 | |
| Version: | A | |
| Designation System: | U.S. Air Force | |
| Designation Period: | 1956-Present | |
| Basic role: | V/STOL | |
| Modified Mission: | Fighter | |
| Status: | Experimental | |
Specifications
| Not Yet Available |
Known serial numbers
Recent comments by our visitors
| Virgil H. Soule Frederick, MD | Does anyone know what happened to the prototype? 05/20/2008 @ 07:34 [ref: 20959] |
| George Tulsa, OK | The U.S. Navy cheated us taxpayers when it clampted down on the bad results of the XFV-12A. Other VTOL designers could have benefitted from the details of the XFV-12A failure. Instead, the U.S. Navy apparently put a black-out on the failure of the XFV-12A project. I could never find any technical papers about the XFV-12A.
This all happened in the 1970's. This was not the only project on which the Navy flim-flammed us taxpayers. That was all in the 1970's and 1980's. I trust that the Navy is more honest nowadays. From a designer of carrier-based airplanes. 01/25/2008 @ 10:04 [ref: 19425] |
| primetime , OH | In regards to waiting till 44 to "get into the war" I suggest you re read your history, or I could send you one of our books and you can read it. Afterall, the US DID in fact "join" the war in 39. While the US didnt go on record of doing so, the constant supply of EVERYTHING that kept the alliance alive till we did enter in 41 is about the ONLY thing that kept our rothers across the pond in the war to begin with. I could go on but it isnt nessasary. Point blank, when ANY country gets into trouble the US is asked to bail them out.
Now, as for the XFV, labaling it a failure is a moronic statement. ANY aircraft, useable or not, that teaches you and educates you to make a better aircraft in the future is not a failure. The XFV allowed the udnerstanding of many things that needed to be worked out. In a lot of ways it is like the old racer, the GEE BEE R1/R2... a hard plane to fly, and even harder to land, but it won races. I have to agree with my fellow Ohioan, and say that like many aircraft, if they had went forward with it and made changes it would have been a very worthy bird. 10/07/2006 @ 11:59 [ref: 14398] |
| Robert W. Horn Euclid, OH | Ah, what sweet irony!! In trying to research the history of Rolls'efforts to develope a supersonic version of their extraordinary Conway LPR turbofan, I find that the ONLY(!!) reference to such is MY OWN(!!) answer to Greg's statements re the XFV-12. Now to getting back "on thread" (I just LOVE(!!) those "Britishisms"), I must concur that, inntheir pursuit of "Manifest Destiny" OUR(!) imperialistic S.O.B.s were (more or less) equal to your imperialistic S.O.B.s, but must add that such concession does NOTHING(!) to alter, or erase, their common (quasi-) cannine maternal ancestry! As for arriving "fashionably late", you're bang-on with that one too. Indeed, when one tosses in our equally outrageous lack of concern for the Rape of Nanking ("just some asiatics killing other asiatics"), plus, historically, our outright SUPPORT(??) for every tyrant, thug, and butcher, INCLUDING(!!), in the 1930s at least, Adolph Hitler and his nazi regime, as useful bulwarks against the westward encroachment of bolshevism, or, at least "forces in the region, useful to U.S. interests" (INCLUDING "Cousin Saddam" in the "anyone-who-stomps-the-Ayatollah-is-an-S.O.B.- we-can-shake-hands-with" 1980s), the current fit of right-wing hand-wringing about "freeing the suffering people of Iraq" becomes exposed as (for THEM(!!), at least) completely out-of-character hypocracy. As for the XFV-12, I still stand by my original point, which, unlike your political observations, seems to have gone unaddressed in specifics. or is it your actual and honest view that the original struggling, and marginally performing, Kestrel had no potential to "morph" into an AV-8B? I believe it DID!! So why not an "FV-12B, C", etc? BTW, DOES(!!) anyone out there know anything about the "feud" between BS & RR that lead to the Air Ministry declaring that, if they (English Electric, sic. BAC) DIDN'T(!) fit an Olympus into the TSR-2, as opposed to their first choice, a Mach-2+ version of the Conway, the entire (TSR-2) program would be scrapped?
Bob OH 07/10/2004 @ 11:31 [ref: 7792] |
| Ben , TX | "masturbating your national egos by playing at God, with the fates of mllions beyond your rainy and dull shores"
In no way does that resemble your occupation of the Philippines then, obviously. Let's hope you do a better job of liberating Iraq you did of liberating the Philippines in 1898. Oh, and while we are still very appreciative for the way that you entered the second world war, its a shame that you couldn't have arrived at the start of the shindig, rather than 5 years fashionably late in 1944, for the ground war at least. At least you showed the japanese "what for" though - especially the part where you let them emasculate the entire american manufacturing industry, selling you high tech wizadry and automobiles from plants built in your own cities. My, they sure learned THEIR lesson. Oh, and just to keep things "on thread", the XFV-12a was crap. 07/05/2004 @ 18:32 [ref: 7756] |
| Scott A. Ryan Houston, TX | In the Aircraft section of the 13ed of Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, it states that the XFV-12 are (or at the time the book was printed)in storage at NASA facility inLangley, VA. 03/20/2004 @ 01:24 [ref: 7016] |
| Robert W. Horn Euclid, OH | Ah Greg:
Again the foul odor of sour grapes. Just a couple of thoughts & questions. How DO you get a high-bypass ratio turbofan, with exhaust ducts that require its effluent to make two successive 90 degree turns prior to exit, to suercruise? The hardest lesson taught by Pegasus is that VTOL propulsion geometry is INHERENTLY incompatible with anything remotely resembling a high mach no. Ergo, high mach PLUS V/CTOL demands an onboard ability to change geometry, sic lift fans and redirectable exhaust. Harrier that great? Have often wondered how the Falklands fracas would have turned out if the Argie junta had swallowed its facist pride and aquired a few Sov "Archers" (or a little French "magic")to match the AIM-9Ls we gave your guys, not to mention having enough sense to build foward Mirage bases on the islands themselves, thus shortening the flying distance to the target, and last,but not least,buying more than a handful of Exocets, and as well, bombs (like the kind the Israelis advertised afterward) that could actually be counted on to....uh, explode(!!) when dropped on a target? In another direction, speaking of vision, how would the Concorde have fared if your local politicos (historically more dangerous to the British aerospace industry than a Russian nuclear strike on Filton) had not taken the coward's way out and invested the proper time and funds into a supersonic Conway for both Concorde AND TSR-2? Also, how Concorde's own commercial success would have been changed if you folks had allowed Pan Am, TWA, Lufthansa, AAL, UAL, EL AL, et.al., all wanting to go supersonic, but in a major cash crunch at that time, to lease rather than buy? Nonsense? It sure worked for Boeing. I used to be a flightline service (refueling) employee with United and can't count the number of B-727s and B-737s that sported, on the inside of the cockpit door where it wasn't visible to the public, a notice saying "This aircraft owned by the Boeing Financial Corporation and leased to UAL". As any apartment building owner, merely renting the space out to tenants, rather than selling it to them outright, will tell you, that might in the long run been much more profitable. Money? Just get a few arab shieks to bankroll the actual purchase with promises of substantial return, plus major influence on the commercial aviation scene. All eminently doable. Could have had at least 200-300 machines in service now. Lack of vision? I would say so. In short, given the number of short-sighted and catastrophic blunders by the Brit bureocrats, from cancelling the Miles supersonc research aircraft, to T-188, to Avro-730, to SR-177, to TSR-2, to............oh hell this is long enough and I'm sure you get the point. In terms of arrogant short-sightedness, shameless parsimony, and sheer mind-numbing stupdity, I'll match your Duncan Sandys' against our Robert MacNamaras any day. So enough moaning, and just remember, if you Brits, doing to the entire world in the 19th century what you so disapproved of Hitler merely trying in europe in the 20th, i.e. masturbating your national egos by playing at God, with the fates of mllions beyond your rainy and dull shores, we wouldn't be in the muck we're in now. So do just shut the hell up, Greg and be grateful we "bloody yanks" (including my father) were even in a mood to come rescue you from your own Teutonic relatives. Twice!!! Cheers! RWH 10/04/2002 @ 08:13 [ref: 5808] |
| Chad Slattery Los Angeles, CA | Does anyone know what became of the two XFV-12A's? Are they at a museum? In storage? Scrapped? Is there a way I could track their whereabouts using their serial numbers? Submitted July 22, 2002. 07/22/2002 @ 13:37 [ref: 5355] |
| Robert W. horn Euclid, OH | Given that powerplants during their length of time in service tend to "grow", sic. the PW F-100 starting out at 23,000lbs thrust and currently neck nand neck with its successor, the F-119, at nearly 35,000 lbs, not to mention the BS/RR Olympus series starting out at the same as a J-57 (11,000lbs) and rising, through countless mods to the unaugmented(!!) level of 35,000lbs+ for use in Concorde, one cannot but wonder what the Thrust Augmented Wing concept might have achieved had the Navy but showed a little perseverence and gone for a "Mk-2" version of the XFV-12 with an an uprated F-401? After all, even though the first Pegasus was barely able to lift its Kestrel off the ground. the latest marks can, if required, "deadlift" an AV-8B, laden with 2,000lb bombs. It is obvious that the real problem was a lack of vision as the ultimate utilty of vertical capability, as demonstrated by the F-35, is to spare a naval aviator the ultimate wastage of skills, i.e. trying to catch a "three wire" with a CTOL aircraft, the most difficult feat in ALL aviation, and one considered by those who've done it as MORE harrowing than combat(???) (doubters, read Cmdr "Duke" Cunninham's evaluation of his duel with NVAF triple ace Colonel Tomb vs. just "getting back on the boat". Toss in tales of Harrier Falklands ops in weather that would leave ALL CTOL birds restricted to their "nests", and the true utility of hover for ops at sea becomes apparent. Oh well. Just another good idea on the trash heap, along with the TSR-2, the Lockheed 2000, etc. Or wa there some inherent flaw in the (TAW) concept?
Anybody out there know? 06/27/2002 @ 08:11 [ref: 5194] |
| Gregg Murray , AL | Just another piss-ass sh*ty attempt to copy the BAE harrier, the best vtol aircraft ever designed (pre jsf, for which rolls royce had to design the VTOL systems!)you yanks may have the money but not the brains! 04/17/2002 @ 08:00 [ref: 4740] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
