Sorry your browser is not supported!

I figured I'd continue our discussion here and let that other thread die.

Now Raven, you said:
`one of the first Jets that the US stole the design of (it `was Lockheed that did it) was the F15 Tomcat Sweepwing `Aircraft ... it was the BAe Tornado alpha design to the `letter, because they told our industry that they had a `working design which was ready for production (which was `back in 1979) when we DID have a working prototype of the `aircraft. So the government scrapped ours for the cheaper `US ones - which were not even close to a working `development when they were ordered, infact it was another `15months before there was a working version ... and took `them 3years to make them AS reliable.
`
I know you said you didn't have time to check this, but here is what I can see.
First, the american F-15 is called the Eagle, the F14 is the Tomcat. And both of those where produced in 1972,and 1973 respectivly. So since you referenced 1979 I'll assume you are taling about a different American plane.

Second, the only Tornado I can seem to find is the Panavia Tornado released in 1980 (79 is close so I guess this is the one) The only American plane released in 1980 is the F/A 18 Hornet (So mabey this is the one we stole from you right)

So from what I can see, the Tornado Alpha (the prototype) flew in 1977, and the F/A 18 first flew in 1978 putting there development right around the same time. However from there general specs I would say they are not the same exact plane
Tornado has a wingspan of 13.91m, and the F/A 18 is 13.5m
Tornado has a max speed of 2333km/h the F/A 18 is 2125km/h

So while I can't find anything that confirms wether we stole your design or not (or even if these are the right 2 plans) I would suggest that since the Tornado was co-developed by a few European countries and Canada and since Canada dropped out of development only a year into the process, I don't think it would have been very hard to go and ask them what you where building.

might've been the Hornet... but i'm pretty sure it was the Tomcat, i dunno - i remember it was the first of the swept-wing aircraft from the states, and the fact our version of it was delayed a good few years simply because we bought the states version cause they said they finished first.

But this isn't the only example of this kinda stuff happening - happened alot with other military grade hardware...

if it is the Tomcat which is a variabel swept wing plane (mabey not the first I can't seem to confirm that) Then mabey I'm looking at the specs for the wrong Tornado (i.e. there a several planes with that name) the oldest Tornado I can find was manufactured in 1980, and since the Tomcat was built in 1972, thats quite a big difference. Another point is that the Tomcat was made by Gunnrum not Lockeed not that that really matters. Unfortunatly the only country listed as exporting any Tomcats is Iran (i.e the Tomcat was notoriusly unreliabel) So as far as I can tell Europe never bought into them. Now I'm not saying we didn't steal the designs I'm just trying to get the planes straight, I mean really I would almost assume we stole the russian Mig-25 designs for the F-15 Eagle.

lol... i'll have to check back up on my plane history, i do tend to get aircraft mixxed up alot - especially the F-x lines

though i know for a fact the main designer (not manufacturer) for the F-x lines are Lockheed ... its thier designation for Military based aircraft, not sure why.

i wish i could remember the actual planes, but the first swept wing was viable late 70s - and actually in production early 80s
So no doubt F/A Hornet and Tornado, are the ones i'm thinking of... i know that the BAe Tornado was the first swept wing aircraft, but not the first in service cause of the designs being nabbed.
There is oftenly differences between the design and the production versions of the Aircraft (^_^)

if you look at the history, almost all of the aerovaion designs that the States has lead with (military atleast) have been based heavily on other countries designs.

f-14 tomcat (think its grumman- its the plane in "TOP-GUN") and panavia tornado are similar designs: two engines with side intakes, swing wing, with small wings at the back. The tornado has a single vertical tail plane though and the tomcat has 2. The tornado is more recent and probably better. I don`t know whether or not any one `nicked` any designs, but it seems feasible.

These plane people are `copying` eachother all the time. Just like games companies, car designers etc. There`s nothing really wrong with this.

BTW the US is responsible for the B2, blackbird, X-29. I think these are original designs. I think the USSR copied from the west a lot- the Backfire is a big B1, and they made a concorde copy that didn`t work too well. The reverse is probably true too.

Which thread are You refering to Jadelion?

>though i know for a fact the main designer (not
>manufacturer) for the F-x lines are Lockheed ... its
>thier designation for Military based aircraft, not sure
>why.

F is the designation that every US fighter or fighter bomber aircraft gets regardles of designer or manufacturer(except for the F117A).

Ideas tend to develop in several places at the same time... Just because a russian plane looks like a western plane, doesn't mean that the design was stolen.

>BTW the US is responsible for the B2, blackbird, X-29. I
>think these are original designs.

The B2 is if anything a copy of the german Horten H IX flying wing from 1937. Even the Blackbird and x-29 can be traced back to german designs during ww2... Both European and american aviation industry owes much to the german designers.

Konkordskij, Buran, s-37 etc. were not merely copies, as the 'Discovery Channel' would like it to seem. When it comes to aerodynamics, copying just won't get You there. It takes years to research, design and build an aircraft.

However, the US has cornered the marked on avionics, whereas the FSU is ahead on aerodynamics.

can assure you that the US only had the commercial aspect of the Aviation cornered... its actually a very common ploy done by US development houses that they let slip something about thier development.

problem is within the military industries for companies, governments are possibly the most guilible creatures on the planet (makes you wonder how the hell they even made it that high!)

now back to the matter at hand, the first records of the tornado were late 70s and the Tomcat was early 70s, this would actually explain a bit cause i remember grandpa noted about a gap in development of about a decade ... insanity really.

most things can be said to be a copy of other things. Saying about how the x-29 is a copy of a german design. I believe the germans knew ~ww2 that backwards wings had advantages, but couldn`t get them to work since they didn`t have the modern materials required to stop them from being ripped off in flight. The US i think was the first country to get one working though.

You could say that Da Vinci invented the tank and helicopter. I believe that thing about 0.01 inspiration, 0.99 perspiration.

Loads of swing wing planes were designed about the same time. Probably one was started first, and the others saw the idea and got people working on the same idea, probably looking at what information was available from the other designers for inspiration. Still their work though.

Andy- what`s FSU?
Raven- did your grandad work on the tornado?

It'd be cool if more of the sometimes really wacky German WWII concepts were copied, for example I'd love to see something like this in real-life:

Hi-res:
http://skyraider.allaboutwarfare.com/files/modelling/Triebfluegeljaeger_render01.jpg

I don't know after looking at the Tornado and the Tomcat, I guess I would conceed that they could have come from the same designs, unfortunatly as I've said the Tomcat is considered a very poorly designed plane. (high maintenence, and low reliability) While the Tornado is a reliabel well built plane, so mabey that extra half a decade it spent in development was better for it in the end. Personally I think Gunnrums designs are ugly (yea it matters how a plan looks) and the Tornado isn't a particularly pretty either. However that new Typhoon Eurofighter looks nice (kida ood though)

>can assure you that the US only had the commercial aspect
>of the Aviation cornered...

Compare the original f-16 to the original MiG-29... The F-16 has superior avionics and electronic systems, whereas the MiG-29 has better aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. The F-16 needs hitec maintenance, and if the engine fails, the computersystems can't keep it flying, whereas the MiG-29 has 2 engines, needs lotec maintenance and will glide to a safe landing.

>its actually a very common
>ploy done by US development houses that they let slip >
>something about thier development.

Disinformation is common, but usually not when it comes to plans and engineering information.

>problem is within the military industries for companies,
>governments are possibly the most guilible creatures on
>the planet (makes you wonder how the hell they even made
>it that high!)

The nature of the creature named 'the politician' is one of deceit, amorality and love of money... How can You expect anything else, from a creature for which prostitution of it's soul is a prerequisite for it's own existence.

>now back to the matter at hand, the first records of the
>tornado were late 70s and the Tomcat was early 70s, this
>would actually explain a bit cause i remember grandpa
>noted about a gap in development of about a decade ...
>insanity really.

actually, both the Grumman F-14 Tomcat and the Panavia Tornado projects officially began around 1968, but Grumman had already designed and engineered a TFX project(do a search on McNamara's folly). That design became the F-14, and took on many of the already designed systems which were developed for the navy f111-B, which never were. The Tornado however had to be developed from scratch, by a tri-national agency... All of which added to the longer design period. On the way, many problems encountered during development of both the F-14 and the Soviet Mig-23 were solved and this makes the Tornado more reliable.

>Loads of swing wing planes were designed about the same
>time. Probably one was started first, and the others saw
>the idea and got people working on the same idea, probably
>looking at what information was available from the other
>designers for inspiration. Still their work though.

That is the popular notion, but it really isn't correct. The USSR couldn't just go "Da*n, the amerikanskis are building a swing wing aircraft, lets do that too!". The technological development is usually everywhere from 10 to 100 years behind the ideas, so it is more of a constant gradual improvement, than a step by step major improvement. Each new improvement brought many new ideas, of which many were not used, but are still in the archives for when they can be implemented.

Andy- what`s FSU?
FSU=Former Soviet Union... To most western people, the Soviet aircraft are all just 'russian', (conveniently forgetting that the USSR was an amalgamation of 15 states and more than a hundred nationalities). However, today most of the MiG production is designed by the (VPK)/(MAPO)/(RAC)MiG(MIG) in the Ukraine, whereas the Sukhoi(SU) design is mostly russian...And so on with the Antonov(AN), Yakovlev(YAK) bureaus etc... Dispersed all over the FSU.

>It'd be cool if more of the sometimes really wacky German
>WWII concepts were copied, for example I'd love to see
>something like this in real-life:

Actually, as far as I recall, it looks very similar to a US X plane.

>I don't know after looking at the Tornado and the Tomcat,
>I guess I would conceed that they could have come from the
>same designs, unfortunatly as I've said the Tomcat is
>considered a very poorly designed plane. (high
>maintenence, and low reliability) While the Tornado is a
>reliabel well built plane, so mabey that extra half a
>decade it spent in development was better for it in the
>end.

As far as I know, at any point in time 1/3 of the Tornados are grounded for maintenance, and engine problems are the usual culprit.

Andy

>yea it matters how a plane looks
I might be biased (being a Swede and having an uncle that worked on the project) but me thinks the JAS-39 Gripen is definately one of the best looking planes out there (sleek and nice, mayhap not one of the most macho-looking):
http://www.gripen.com/gripen_photo_coll.asp

most decent planes look cool. I think form should follow function, and most things are designed/optimised for a purpose (such as racing cars, fighter planes etc) looks good. The only exception to this rule that i can think of is people. I mean, on paper mens badies are better (run faster etc.), but aren`t nearly as aesthetically pleasing as womens.

Ed... my grandpa didn't work on the actual aircraft, however worked on the Rolls Royce engine that they fitted it with
he worked on most of the Roll Royce engines from 1936->1982 (in the RAF) when he took the golden handshake and moved onto Private Engineering firm also associated with BAe

alot of sweet looking planes built ... however from what i was told last visit, the British Plane was complete - wasn't a case of like a decade or something more R&D, it just took them that long to get the government to relise we had the superior fighter from the start. (which is bloody typical if you ask me)

and that plane with the wings as a propeller looks outstanding ... i love that - wish it was built (^_^)