Harrier patent in USA

#17, DaveF68, calls me on “most” RAF dumb bombs were US. My source was a throwaway (“US origin”) in a journo Falklands effort. So I delved. M44 Bomb, HE, MC, 1000lb, single lug was dual sourced UK/US, 1941-43, RAF and USAAF dropping either/both. Vulcan 607,P.178 has Waddo finding 41 on site, and scavenging another 167. 63 were expended in Corporate. Unless a thriving armourer comes on here to tell us different, I will now say that we do not know whether the iron delivered by Black Buck was of US or UK provenance.

The ‘GR.5’ or so called ‘big wing’ Harrier was effectively a GR.3 with a larger wing. Whilst seeming a good idea – the GR.3 fuselage had effectively run out of development potential and wasn’t a good prospect for the future. The McDD machine effectively is far removed from the GR3.The extra space allows for far more avionics and better flying control systems. The GR5/7/9 is a lot more capable and safer in the hover than any of the first generation Harriers . Similarily the composite wing would have been a difficult shape to replicate in metal – it would have been both costly and heavy to build.
In all whilst the GR.5 /AV.8B did have some compromises – it is far better than the GR.3 in terms of what could have become of it with a bigger wing.

David
I see you have had a similar discussion before on a different forum and since what we were discussing is really not ‘historic’ ,I will not post any more on this subject…. it is all academic because ultimately we would have had to collaborate with McDD anyway.

Regards Baz

The ‘GR.5’ or so called ‘big wing’ Harrier was effectively a GR.3 with a larger wing. Whilst seeming a good idea – the GR.3 fuselage had effectively run out of development potential and wasn’t a good prospect for the future. The McDD machine effectively is far removed from the GR3.The extra space allows for far more avionics and better flying control systems. The GR5/7/9 is a lot more capable and safer in the hover than any of the first generation Harriers . Similarily the composite wing would have been a difficult shape to replicate in metal – it would have been both costly and heavy to build.
In all whilst the GR.5 /AV.8B did have some compromises – it is far better than the GR.3 in terms of what could have become of it with a bigger wing.

I would have hoped that the big wing GR5 would have had an updated fuselage as well if it entered production,the proof of concept for AV8B was basically an updated wing on an AV8A fuselage as well,one has to start somewhere!!
Why would one want to replicate the composite wing shape in metal ? I believe that McDD perhaps went a little too far with trying to make the AV8B have fairly docile handling,but ended up with a design that is not necessarily the best for combat/handling,the inboard leading edge looks more like a 40’s bomber than an 80’s attack a/c and it still needs departure resistant software in the flying control system.
The large leading edge root extensions (LERX)were added by BAe to improve its agility.
Agreed that the GR5 is safer in the hover but surely the UK GR5 would have also had an updated Flight control system as well so it perhaps is an unfair comparison.Probably comes down to money… BAe would make more money out of (say) 40% of the AV8 program(me) than 100% of their own a/c and not have to obtain as much development money to fund it.

Cheers Baz

Most RAF dumb bombs, inc Black Buck’s, were US

Huh?

The ‘GR.5’ or so called ‘big wing’ Harrier was effectively a GR.3 with a larger wing. Whilst seeming a good idea – the GR.3 fuselage had effectively run out of development potential and wasn’t a good prospect for the future. The McDD machine effectively is far removed from the GR3.The extra space allows for far more avionics and better flying control systems. The GR5/7/9 is a lot more capable and safer in the hover than any of the first generation Harriers . Similarily the composite wing would have been a difficult shape to replicate in metal – it would have been both costly and heavy to build.
In all whilst the GR.5 /AV.8B did have some compromises – it is far better than the GR.3 in terms of what could have become of it with a bigger wing.

Here is a little curiosity;)
Unused from Harrier 11 or 11+ contract.
When ‘British Wasteospace’ still had a pretty airfield ‘Dahn Sarf’

It’s impossible for a British discussion / commentary on the Mustang to last 17 seconds without mention of the Merlin… (Important and legitimate though that is).

The full taunt also refers to the ex-Messerschmitt origins of at least two members of the design team:
thus giving the argument that the “Best American Fighter of the Second World War was actually a German aircraft with a British engine (following an American failure) in a response originally to a U.K. spec.”
Not my words of course.

Yes with the AV8B/GR5 as usual it was good old fashioned lack of British investment which let the U.S.A have the design lead on updating the Harrier.
The original GR5 metal wing Harrier looked pretty good and a metal wing may have been a better all round alternative to the composite AV8 type,I do not know what the realistic weight penalty of a tin wing would have been but possibly not as much as one might imagine!!
The finish/workmanship on the metal Harrier wings was much better than on the composite McDD ones, the AV8B systems were much neater than the old ‘plumbers nightmare’ hydraulics on GR3/Seajet !!;) but electrically much more complex(some systems too overcomplicated!!)
You certainly cannot beat a metal structure for battle damage/field repairs,composites are not ‘user friendly’ in that area!!

The 2 way street assumption does however,still lead us into continuing problem areas.

Like many other things it changes depending on where you stand – as your friend’s blood explosion over a US perspective on the Harrier illustrates so well!

It’s impossible for a British discussion / commentary on the Mustang to last 17 seconds without mention of the Merlin… (Important and legitimate though that is).

It’s in the nature of humanity for group A to find it easy to trumpet their own successes and gloss over their shortcomings. Working with group B, naturally group B’s shortcomings are spotlit and their achievements under-regarded. It’s grist to the whiners to wave around pointless differences, but the ‘e’ on Concorde is an unbeatable case-study with lashings of irony.

If (heaven forbid) group A has an unrepayable debt to group B, then the carping and niggling wanders off into another level of petty resentment.

Add in national differences and culture, language etc, and you can ensure your team’s shortcomings are always their team’s fault…

When there’s money involved…

And as has been amply shown here on quite a few recent threads, there’s always an audience ready to believe the most pathetic canards because it is comfortable and avoids accepting responsibility for local failure or lack of achievement. After all it’s always ‘them wot dun it’, not us.

We are all still stuck in our tribal mentality at times.

Too true. Eternal vigilance.

Alertken my point was , in fact, a genuine bit of confusion on my part, not an attempt to patronise.
I think the British generally greatly underestimate the sponsorship of the USA from P1127/Pegasus conception right through to the end of the “Tripartite nine”. Indeed, the U.S. text supporting the Kestrel in the Smithsonian caused a friend of mine nearly to have an aneurism when he read that perspective on the Aircraft’s development!
The 2 way street assumption does however,still lead us into continuing problem areas. Although not fully relevant perhaps to this thread ,the now long ongoing JSF software sharing saga illustrates some of these issues.

My “now” (open, clearly, to misunderstanding), was to make my inter-dependence point despite, what 40 years, between inventing P.1127 and hanging Maverick on it.

I am offering a response to anti-septicism. If a clear patent infringement occurs, lawyers will wade well. Those paid to set these things up are quite as bright as, say, me, blessed only with hindsight. US State Dept. will have been miffed at us unlicenced copying Fat Man, or flogging Nene/Derwent (built with US raw materials) to Sovs. We did both those things in, as we saw it, the National Interest. US tried, in their ditto, to stop us selling Viscounts to China – an ITT/STC item (?radalt) was subject to embargo. We fitted BEAC spares.

Bager 1968. Thank you for taking it upon yourself to speak to us all on behalf of both alertken and myself, especially as it would appear from the somewhat peurile tone of your outburst to have been well past your bedtime-even in the USA.

He is quite aware they are two separate missiles… BOTH of which are now in RAF inventories.

That was the point he was making… as anyone who wasn’t looking for a nitpick to criticise understood.

Alertken . I don’t think the AIM -9 (Sidewinder) is in any way related to the Maverick.

“Negative Ghost rider the patern is full”

😀

Alertken . I don’t think the AIM -9 (Sidewinder) is in any way related to the Maverick.

The patent holder of bifurcated, swivelling nozzles was M.Wibault, whose work was part-funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. R&D up to type test of BS.53 (earliest Pegusus, P.1127 prototype) was 75% (US)MWDP funded, as was (IIRC) 25% construction of first P.1127 prototype. Grunt was added with W.German funding for Do.31. Kestrel Evaluation Sqdn., which turned an experiment into a weapon, was jointly funded, UK/US/FRG. Harrier GR.1 inertial nav system gyro was Westinghouse. So was GR.3’s YAG laser. (IIRC the moving map display has US input). Most RAF dumb bombs, inc Black Buck’s, were US. AIM-9, now Maverick…Shall I go on?
It’s called a two-way street. No one Nation “owns” anything in aeronautics. All “Super”/AV-8B models were jointly designed and built.

No the AV8 B /GR5 was a collaboration between BAe and McDD.
Right up to the closure of Dunsfold BAe were manufacturing centre/rear fuselages for the US variant.
The AV8 A harrier/GR1 etc might never have happened originally without USMC backing .
BAe did want to build a ‘big wing’ Harrier but for various reasons had to collaborate on the ‘Plastic Pig’;) with McDD.

I was under the impression that the US Marine Corps AV-8Bs were built jointly by McDonnell-Douglas and British Aerospace.
I’d guess that any patent issues would have been covered under the production agreement.

BTW: With the US helping fund development of the P.1127 back in the 1960s…would that have any impact on US use of the technologies?