Northrop P700 / N310 / N/D-102 tailless fighter

Thank you Ghostmodeler for this useful and detailed history. Am I correct in believing that Northrop Grumman has the last, active in-house model shop among major aerospace manufacturers?
 
Circle-5, that's kind of a trick question. We may have the only dedicated display model shop still in the majors, but as far as I know the others still have model shops that include not only displays and exhibits (when needed), but wind-tunnel and test models as well (likely their primary function). There is a very good article in the 2006 Vol. 21, no. 4 issue of Code One magazine that covers Lockheed Martin's shop. The issue is accessible on-line at www.codeonemagazine.com. I believe Boeing has similar multifunction shops in both Seattle and St. Louis that are still operational. I don't know about Raytheon, but I don't think they are considered a prime airframe manufacturer anymore, either.
 
Well Ghostmodeler, we must have overlapped a little when I was in AD, until I left for Tacit Rainbow and Northrop Ventura. Thanks for your history of the model shop evolution over the years and an explanation of the stands used. I guess the real tell is the characteristic plaque or has that changed too?
 
ghostmodeler said:
There is a very good article in the 2006 Vol. 21, no. 4 issue of Code One magazine that covers Lockheed Martin's shop. The issue is accessible on-line at www.codeonemagazine.com.
Click to expand...

Very good article indeed, ghostmodeler. Thank you and welcome to SPF!
 
BillRo, I was never in AD, so I don't think we've ever met. The Display Model Shop was in the Torrance KB facility at the time I started, although I did spend about 3 months locked up in the wind-tunnel model shop in Hawthorne working on a special project. If our paths crossed it may have been there, assuming you were on that program. I went back to Torrance after my stint. We didn't move to the 3-10 Building in Hawthorne until 1986 or 87. We do know some of the same people, though.

Circle-5, there was another article on Dick Guiselman and the Northrop Display Model Shop that was published in the January/February 1983 issue of Airbrush Digest Magazine. I was absolutely floored by that piece, little realizing that I would be joining the shop in a year-and-one-half. There was a great photo of Dick surrounded by models that was really cool. When Air & Space Smithsonian magazine did the article on us in September 2009 I got my photo taken surrounded by the models as well. It was like life had come full circle.

Apparently you can download articles or buy CDs of the full run of Airbrush Digest Magazine from this site, if you're interested:



http://store.airbrushaction.com/airbrush-digest-collection/
 
Hi,

I can't download this page about Northrop/Dornier ND102.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?QueryTerm=nd+102&DocType=Article&sort=
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    44.2 KB · Views: 1,543
  • 84.jpg
    84.jpg
    32.5 KB · Views: 1,176
archive.aviationweek.com

Aviation Week — September 24 1984

Explore the full September 24 1984 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.
archive.aviationweek.com archive.aviationweek.com
 

Attachments

  • 084-.jpg
    084-.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 986
archive.aviationweek.com

Aviation Week — May 21 1984

Explore the full May 21 1984 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.
archive.aviationweek.com archive.aviationweek.com
 

Attachments

  • 000-.jpg
    000-.jpg
    722.2 KB · Views: 839
Grey Havoc said:
Was the N/D-102 designation widely used at that time (1984)?
Click to expand...

Bill Gunstons An Illustrated Guide to Future Fighters and Combat Aircraft published in 1984 refers to it as the N/D 102 and has this to say referring to Dornier:

"It has therefore refused to subscribe to large and costly fighter ideas, and since 1982 has refined a low-cost design called the N/D 102. Northrop is facing both ways in this programme because - though the timing is different - it must to some degree be a competitor to the US company's own F-20A"

Going back further, Flight International on 11 Sept 1982 and 19 May 1984 also ran 2 short articles with a picture referring to it as the N/D 102.
Aviation Week also featured an article on 20th June 1983 referring to it as the N/D 102. (Page 17 below). This is from the Paris Airshow of that year, which Paul mentions in his posts #6 and #9 on Page 1 of this thread.


So, at that stage (before teh interwebz) that is what I at least knew the project as only. Of course subsequently, SecretProjects here has opened up a whole new world for me at least on the subject.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
archive.aviationweek.com

Aviation Week — June 6 1983

Explore the full June 6 1983 issue of Aviation Week. Browse featured articles, preview selected issue contents, and more.
archive.aviationweek.com archive.aviationweek.com
 

Attachments

  • 016-.jpg
    016-.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 639
...
 

Attachments

  • ND-102 Luftfahrt International 1982-11.jpg
    ND-102 Luftfahrt International 1982-11.jpg
    848.9 KB · Views: 555
Last edited:
Pioneer said:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
From Wikimedia:

de.wikipedia.org

Northrop-Dornier ND-102 – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org de.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
The 4 x Aim-120 ventral arrangement has always impressed me on the ND-102, and yet, it still has six under-wing hardpoints and two wingtip Sidewinder's!
Although I'm still trying to assertain if it was to have a built-in cannon of some type??

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

If you zoom in, you can see the cannon port in the side of the belly bump under the cockpit. I don't recall if it just had the one or two cannons (one each side).
 

Attachments

  • 1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566.jpg
    1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566.jpg
    57.5 KB · Views: 96
  • 1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (1).jpg
    1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (1).jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 92
  • 1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (2).jpg
    1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (2).jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 90
  • 1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (3).jpg
    1_030b33a0018fa389713adbe555e55566 (3).jpg
    24.5 KB · Views: 91
Would the thrust vectoring system theoretically be capable of deflecting air around its exterior in an engines-out scenario to still provide some (greatly reduced) pitch authority?
 
Its pitch authority was based on vectored thrust, wasn't it? Doesn't that mean that the entire nozzle would move up and down? I would personally expect some form of pitch control in the event of an engine out scenario, so would the nozzle (which can move up and down, and is flat on the top and bottom) be able to deflect the air around it to act as an aerodynamic surface? Or is the thrust vectoring accomplished through interior vanes of some manner?

Then again, the chances of both engines going out and the fighter not being inoperable are quite low, so maybe this is a non-issue.
 
Many [most?] engines use fuel as a hydraulic [motive] fluid to actuate the engine nozzle. If the engine has failed, there is little to no fuel pressure generated by the accessory gearbox-mounted fuel pump to actuate the nozzle/thrust vector system.
 
Not necessarily. Take the F-16 as an example - it has a hydrazine-powered Emergency Power Unit (EPU) that provides backup hydraulic and electrical power for (I think) about 10-15 minutes of gliding flight to either an area of lower threat (wartime) or the nearest airport (peacetime). There are videos from HUD tapes from actual emergencies that have been posted on Youtube.
 
Prophet141 said:
Its pitch authority was based on vectored thrust, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
I'd be pretty sure primary pitch control would be from the elevons on the wing trailing edge. The thrust vectoring is then for increased authority at higher AoA. If the thrust vectoring fails then you recover to a narrower envelope to use the elevons.
 
red admiral said:
I'd be pretty sure primary pitch control would be from the elevons on the wing trailing edge. The thrust vectoring is then for increased authority at higher AoA. If the thrust vectoring fails then you recover to a narrower envelope to use the elevons.
Click to expand...
Actually, based on what I've read, the Northrop tailless designs used TV for their primary pitch control, which makes sense, since you can then use the elevons to maximize L/D during a turn/maneuvers. It also limited the amount of G's they could pull since it had to be used for both thrust and pitch. IIRC, they were usually good to around 7Gs. Having said that, I haven't any doubt the elevons would have the ability to take over picth control if the TV was disabled. As you noted, they would just be more alpha/pitch limited in such a scenario.
 
Sundog said:
Actually, based on what I've read, the Northrop tailless designs used TV for their primary pitch control, which makes sense, since you can then use the elevons to maximize L/D during a turn/maneuvers.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. Thinking about it, it would probably be an unstable design and so you need the higher rate elevons for fine trimming and could then use the lower rate TVC for gross trimming and gross pitch attitude changes
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom